Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Reminder: Don't Bite the Newbies!

The article is about a highly charged topic, and the Wikipedia article itself has gotten some notice on various social media sites as a result of outside attacks on some of the users of the article. As such, there may be newbies coming to Wikipedia here, and this will be their first experience with editing it.

Remember: Don't WP:BITE them! Be WP:CIVIL. If they have trouble with WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:SOURCE, WP:BIAS, WP:NPOV, whatever, remember: assuming good faith is very important! Good WP:FAITH is a great way to encourage people to stay here and not only improve this article, but other articles in the future. If people make mistakes, assume ignorance before stupidity, and stupidity before malice.

Also remember that many of these people likely are sensitive to issues of censorship, real or perceived, because of the nature of the issue, and many of them may well feel themselves to be subjects of persecution, just or unjust. It is important to make sure that these people understand we're not out to get them, or to muzzle them, but to improve Wikipedia.

Emotions are high because of the nature of the controversy, so everyone should try to keep cool, calm, and collected. We're all here to improve the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Your third paragraph onwards is really very patronising to the "newbies", and your final line reads like the usual pseudonymous threat of censorship. I would recommend sticking to your first two paragraphs only. Feel free to delete this comment if you amend your own. Koncorde (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to be argumentative, but those paragraphs are correct, at least from my perspective. I came in right before the Dox, and I am hoping to be heard to make this a moderate position because of the way it has been handled so far. PseudoSomething (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're on about, but the suggestion in the OP is that somehow newbies are paranoid conspiracy theorists with persecution complexes. Maybe that's not what Titanium is trying to say but that's what it currently implies and it's a patronising load of fluff. Koncorde (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, well then we interpreted it differently. I saw it as, "Don't try to tell them to 'Shut up' and not listen to them if they have valid points.". Maybe it just needs a rewording. PseudoSomething (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

A big part of what caused the whole thing to blow up was mass deletion of posts on Reddit, 4chan, and other websites - the Streisand Effect in action. Hence, they're likely to be sensitive to perceived censorship because perceptions of censorship were part of what drove the thing in the first place. Likewise with the perception of being subjects of persecution, both from the media and from each other - harassment and all that fun stuff. Removed the last couple sentences; I didn't mean for it to come off as a threat of censorship, and I'm sorry it read that way to you. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Biased

The article is clearly biased, this line - "#GamerGate refers to a controversy in video game culture in which long-standing issues of sexism and misogyny in the gamer community became high-profile on social media in August 2014." should be changed to "#GamerGate refers to a controversy in video game culture in which long-standing issues of alleged sexism and misogyny in the gamer community became high-profile on social media in August 2014." as it is just an opinion or a citation should be added if it is based on any factual research. Also, "near the end of 2013, Quinn stated that she had been harassed by a number of members of the gaming community with statements similar to "women cannot relate to anyone with depression" is factually incorrect as the cropped screenshot she posted was taken from a site called wizardchan, which is an exclusive community and imageboard of adult male virgins, most of them suffering from depression and social anxiety. It is a not a community of gamers. Shubhransu (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This is heavily biased. GamerGate started after the Zoe Quinn controversy. It's about corrupt journalism in general, but the article can't seem to get that.

I strongly agree with this, there is plenty of information out there even statements of the people involved saying many of the points raised by GamersGate is true, i am shocked that this article is so small, makes me wonder if it was censured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.142.180.79 (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's one narrative strand. Flesh out the article, whoever you are. kencf0618 (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

While GamerGate grew to encompass broader questions about games journalism, the first use of the hashtag was specifically in reference to Zoe Quinn Monkmunk (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not true at all, Monkmunk (talk). Further, any mentions of Zoe Quinn since the #gamergate hashtag became popular have been related to her alleged nepotism within the industry, not "sexist harassment" as the article states. It also had nothing to do with Anita Sarkeesian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.188.119 (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd be interested in any evidence to the contrary, but my understanding is that, per this topsy analytics page, the first instance of the gamergate hashtag was Adam Baldwin's use of it in a link to both the "Quinnspiracy Theory: The Five Guys Saga" and "Quinnspiracy Theory: In-N-Out Edition" youtube videos. While the second video is a bit broader in scope, the first is very specifically about Zoe Quinn. Monkmunk (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

'According to Erik Kain, writing in Forbes, the GamerGate movement is driven by an anti-feminist backlash against the increasing diversity of voices involved in cultural criticism of video games. "What it boils down to is many people feeling upset that the video game space has been so heavily politicized with a left-leaning, feminist-driven slant," he said.' This section is clearly biased because the quotation simply doesn't support the claim. It is entirely possible to object to "feminist-driven politicization" of something without being "anti-feminist". Everything about this article is a smear campaign designed to paint people who are sick of a constant stream of articles talking about misogyny etc. in gaming, as misogynist simply because they don't want to hear it. It's Kafkatrapping plain and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.5.250 (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Addendum to that: the rest of the paragraph in the Forbes article actually makes that clear - "I’ve heard from many readers claiming they have no problem with more women and gay people represented in games; they simply don’t want every game to be critiqued based on these factors. I’ve heard from others who readily admit that they miss the days when games were more male-centric. One reader emailed to say that he has no problem with women, but video games were a nice boys club of sorts, a refuge from women where the boys could play for a while undisturbed." Whoever contributed this part of the article is clearly cherry-picking to drive a narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.5.250 (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I should also note that the "increasing diversity of voices involved in cultural criticism of video games" is largely a sham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.5.250 (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"Quinn and her family were subsequently targeted by a campaign of harassment,[14][15] as were supporters such as game developer Phil Fish, and internet commentator John Bain.[3][16][17]" This statement is misleading, as it implies that John Bain is a supporter of Quinn; in fact, source 3 explicitly notes that Bain took a neutral stance. Source 17 is also invalid here, as it does not mention any of Quinn, Fish or Bain by name. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to chime in that I too felt that the article read as extremely biased and one sided. It's obvious the writer is a supporter of Zoey Quinn and "that side" of the debate, painfully so. Nothing is mentioned as to why the actual "campaign" over the whole thing actually happened, nor is any of the circumstances not related to Zoey even mentioned. Frankly, it's questionable why this is even an article, at the very least, it shouldn't be viewable in it's current format.

I would agree this articles changes 2 or 3 times and it clearly has nothing to do with gamergate anymore and is trying to paint zoey in a good light this needs to be removed or locked till its can be unbias and her supports stop trying to use "alleged" to preface proven things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.13.111 (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 98.247.74.43 (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The article paints a rather accurate depiction of what happened though. The entire thing has nothing to do with "nepotism" in game journalism, because no such thing happened. The writer Quinn is said to have slept with only briefly mentioned her in a single article before they had a relationship. IRC logs have also been shown by Quinn in which the people who began the "movement" plan it for the express reason of ruining her reputation. There has also been talk of physically "punishing" her. This has as much to do with corruption in video game journalism as it does with table lamps.96.28.205.179 (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@96.28.205.179: This is incorrect. Nepotism is the heart of the matter and what kept the ball rolling on the entire affair. Had this only been a troll event then it would have burn out within a week. The fact is that the revelation by the ex-bf got the ball started but the links to nepotism is what kept everyone engaged. This was compounded by the later attacks on gaming culture by news outlets focusing on the harassment aspect and ignoring everything else. It did not help that many of these outlets had ties to the people in question. The IRC logs were all done in a public room and the veracity of the claims that this was a giant troll effort are to be had with a grain of salt as this ignores the calls for keeping the story running based on the nepotism being discovered. Subsequently, the initial airing of dirty laundry by the ex-bf became little more than a catalyst as further ties between devs, writers, and media outlets began to show. Sadly, the fact that many of those in people question (including Quinn) are having their testimony held as truth without a counterpoint on Wiki is a bit disconcerting. Brainplay (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

A very shoddy page at best; very evident of a bias, a number of sources cited are articles that where nothing more than opinion pieces, not factual, no connection between the person threatening Anita and #gamergate has been shown ergo Anita is not relevant to the page, as others have said, parts that claim the movement is based on sexism and misogyny are only hearsay, anyone that acts in such a manor is generally condemned by the movement, there has been plenty of pro-gamergate people who have faced similar persecution, page is written as if this is fact, why do I see no mention of the censorship anyone that was pro-gamergate faced mentioned? Reddit alone had 20,000+ comments deleted in a thread about it, alleged racketeering involving Phil Fish and Indiecade might as well be included at this point, more evidence to support that than what there is to support a good portion of stuff in this article. I could keep going, but I think my point has been made, the page just doesn't show enough from both sides.Noeyez (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2014

extremely biased, can be seen as an article pushing an agenda. Needs to represent the other side of the argument with sources.

Until then this article should not be viewable. 59.152.99.3 (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence that this article needs to be semi-protected. Unless people are being abusive, we're fine and can police the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Twitter Hashtags

Why is this notable? Countered (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess it depends. In terms of the game-culture this is the event of the year. 3 weeks and counting where there is a war on the net. Many articles has been written and celebrities have engaged in the topic. --Torga (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper or a blog post. Generally there needs to be more than just a hashtag and a few headline titles for to make a topic notable. Countered (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I can understand that point. But i am unsure about the deletion to be honest. Over 300.000 tweets in the hashtag, 20 articles, time, forbes, al-jazerra writing about it. At some point these topics would go under a ordinary controversy that is listed on Wikipedia. --Torga (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The GamerGate campaign for gaming is what Watergate was to politics. It exposed the corruption in gaming journalism and attempts at hijacking gaming culture with third-wave feminist propaganda. Even if it's just an Internet thing, the scope of the campaign is enough to make someone uninvolved to stable upon it in the future and wikipedia, due to it's structure, is the only mainstream source that have an ability to provide actual information. That is, unless post-modern feminists decide to raid wikipedia again. It's also a source of information on backlash from Sarkeesian controversy on gaming in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.42.44.18 (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

A Wikipedia page exists for the NotAllMen hashtag. Gamergate is readily demonstrated to be vastly more notable. (Just editing to sign this comment) 70.24.5.250 (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

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

---

This page should not be speedily deleted because... It is a big controversy in the culture of gaming. However the article is biased and not at all neutral. It should stay up, but lots of work in creating this article more balanced should be taken. If not the best option is deletion --Torga (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not an explanation for why it shouldn't be deleted. Nothing about this stub is notable, and that's why it's been nominated for deletion. Countered (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the entire talk page has been lost somehow. I wrote a big long thing about this in the talk page discussing how to improve it. Was the article deleted? Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the original version of this page was deleted last night. I'm going to go through the deletion logs. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Figured out what happened; someone flagged it as an attack page for speedy deletion, it got deleted, then got restored because it wasn't one. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Delving into the recent past, from what I can tell it was WP:Admin User:RHaworth who initially deleted my initial attempt, and although he mentions on his archived talk page that he had restored it, I find that this current, highly topical and highly controversial article had been established as a stub by User:Mckaysalisbury, whom I have not dealt with whatsoever. GamerGate_2 had a brief life, but in the interests of transparency, and given its intense interest by assorted parties, it would be best for the provenance of this article to be crystal clear. kencf0618 (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• If you cannot even remember where you created your version, I don't think you deserve to have it restored. You have at least twice given referred to GamerGate 2 which has never existed. Are you trying to say GamerGate (2) by any chance? NorthBySouthBaranof claims to have merged in your text with this edit. If you really insist and ask me on my talk page, I will restore your edits and merge them into here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably. Not a matter of restoration, but of provenance. Sorry for the difficulty. No need for any merging. kencf0618 (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm no experienced wikipedia bumpkin, but I'd say this should be deleted on account of the fact that no actual corroborating evidence was presented to show that Zoe Quinn actually used sex in exchange for publicity or jobs, the entirety of Gamgergate being a twitter event that deflated after some chatlogs were released, and the fact that wikipedia articles typically aren't created for hearsay from ex-boyfriends or ex-girlfriends (otherwise plenty of celebrity articles would quickly become even more of a mess). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.34.15 (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Article Content

We should probably figure out how this is going to need to be laid out.

Background

Previous instances of corruption/unprofessional behavior in industry.

Previous instances of press and game developers being disrespectful to gamers. The John Romero incident is one notable example.

"Disrespectful"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're familiar with it, but the John Romero incident (where they made an ad that said "John Romero is going to make you his bitch" as an advertisement for Daikatana) is pretty infamous. There have been other instances as well of various game developers/journalists saying denigrating things or otherwise being disrespectful of gamers which lead to minor controversies and resentment towards some of said folk. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Past instances of harassment of gaming developers, and possibly Zoe Quinn in specific. Possible mention of controversy over Depression Quest coverage, which made her a target of ire?

Dunno if anything relevant about Anita Sarkeesian fits in here? If so, should be noted.

Anita Arkeesian has very little at all to do with GamerGate. Only real thread is her connection to Silver String Media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.165.59.90 (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Her harassment (which also happened again before GG) is part of the issues overall. The combined harassment of ZQ and AA (and others) led to the larger press to take interest in this story. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Past instances of alleged misogyny in gaming?

Brewing fight over social justice agitation in gaming press?

Blow-Up

Blog post by ex about Zoe Quinn re: romantic/sexual relationship with Grayson, reporter for Kotaku who had written about her in the past, and gaming developer who went on to hire her. Shouldn't go into excessive detail here, but need to give background as it is vital to understand both the accusations of corruption and nepotism and misogyny; per WP:BLPNAME we should probably avoid naming her ex and possibly the gaming developer. Grayson probably needs to be named due to official response from Kotaku likely appearing later in the article in reference to him. Quinn is too central not to be named.

Once again, we literally don't care about Zoe Quinn's romantic relationships and no mention of them beyond the debunked claims of "quid pro quo" re: Grayson can be countenanced. There are no reliable sources reporting anything remotely resembling allegations of "nepotism." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean other than Forbes, Al Jazeera, Vox, Slate, and Time? Because all of them have made note of these allegations. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. I've read all of those articles and none of them make claims of "nepotism." They make (brief) mention of the debunked allegations about Grayson (Forbes notes "the initial concerns were quickly proven to be all smoke and no fire.") NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

We're not reporting on WP:TRUTH. We're reporting on what happened - it doesn't matter whether or not the allegations are true, any more than it matters whether or not the Shooting of Micheal Brown was murder or self defense, because people still rioted and protested because of the perception of racism, claiming that he was murdered by a white cop. Likewise, here, gamers threw around accusations of nepotism and corruption - it doesn't matter if they are true or not, because they still DID so, and ended up being noted in a large number of RSs for their accusations. Likewise, the counter-attacks of charges of misogyny and slut-shaming are not about WP:TRUTH, but about what people did - again, it isn't about whether or not the GamerGate thing is about misogyny or slut-shaming, but because people said that they were and, again, it was noted by numerous RSs. I'm not sure why you are having so much trouble with this. This is reporting on stuff that happened, not whether or not there was actual corruption. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The reliably-sourced articles make no statements about Zoe Quinn and "nepotism." They discuss the Grayson allegations, and note that those allegations have been debunked. I find no reliable sources discussing anything about Zoe Quinn and a "gaming developer who went on to hire her." Your claim that "gamers threw around accusations" is irrelevant, because we don't include every random accusation ever made about someone by someone on the Internet. If the reliable sources don't see fit to mention them, they have no place in Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

"The reliably-sourced articles make no statements about Zoe Quinn and "nepotism." Even Jenn Frank admitted that the accusations involve nepotism

this month, Quinn’s ex-boyfriend published intimate details of their relationship online, and her sexual history inexplicably became the centrepiece of a large-scale, industry-wide debate about journalism, nepotism and ethics--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That is not a statement that Quinn was accused of nepotism, and there is no reliable source stating anything about this alleged game developer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Response

Gamers charging nepotism, corruption and improper relationships on various social media sites and gaming journalism websites.

We need a reliable source to explain what the alleged "corruption" involves. What, exactly, is "corrupt" about the situation - that is, in what manner can any of this be described as fraudulent or dishonest? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of slut-shaming and misogyny being the real cause for claims by social justice folks and some of the gaming press.

Initial media blackout in gaming press, censorship, and accusations of censorship.

Who, exactly, is claiming there was a "media blackout"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Forbes. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The words "media blackout" appear nowhere in the article. The article notes that video game publications don't feel comfortable writing about people's personal lives and relationships - that is not the same as a "media blackout." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Read the article on media blackout. Yes, the words media blackout were never used in the article; I 100% agree. Instead he noted that they deliberately didn't cover the issue - which is, by definition, a media blackout. As the article on media blackouts notes, they occur for a variety of reasons. I think you are unfamiliar with the term; it does not mean what you think it means. A media blackout is a lack of coverage over a subject, voluntary or otherwise. And, again, I'm trying to note these things as succinctly as possible; this is not proposed text for the article, but proposed things we should talk about content-wise. It was noted by several RSs that the dearth of coverage on the issue by the gaming press, combined with the perception of censorship, lead to the Streisand Effect. The Forbes article even uses that particular phrase. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That's your original synthesis, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

We may note that Erik Kain in Forbes said video game publications don't feel comfortable writing about people's personal lives and relationships and that some gamers perceived this to be censorship; we may not extend that to claim that there was some sort of orchestrated "media blackout," because that phrase appears nowhere in any reliable source commenting on the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The two things are synonyms; that isn't original synthesis, that's how language works, though I'm not proposing we use the term media blackout in the article as noted, save possibly outside of as an accusation by gamers (who perceived the lack of coverage as a media blackout). I made no accusation of an orchestrated media blackout; I'm not sure where you got that from. There are some accusations of it having been orchestrated, but I was not making such accusations. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Harassment, criticism, death threats of Zoe Quinn.

Harassment of commentators on the situation (John Bain was mentioned in several places; not sure if the writer for Brietbart is worth noting, but he also got death threats).

Andrew Breitbart has been dead for two years; not sure how he could get "death threats." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Derp derp. It was a writer for Brietbart.com. Thanks. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Should Phil Fish's involvement be noted here? He did "quit" as a result, but he has done similar things in the past which amounted to nothing; possibly not include until we find out if he actually sold his company per WP:CRYSTALBALL? His harassment may or may not be notable; it was noted briefly in the RSs for a while, but does not seem to be a subject of continued focus; might be better to note that some of Zoe Quinn's supporters were harassed and not name them?

Kotaku response.

Response from game sites which changed their ethics standards in response to controversy.

Gamers vs Press

Fight between the gamers and the press. Not sure what should be noted here; gamers percieved disrespect for the press for speaking down to them and avoiding addressing issues of corruption, vs depicting gamers as misogynists who are clinging to a dying culture? Not sure what the best way of presenting this information is. Was noted in numerous RSs.

Definately the 24 hour window where the articles about the death of gamers. That was the moment it went from a confrontation into war. --Torga (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian

She is tied up in all of this; where does she come in? Her involvement in commentating on women in games, the perception of ignorance and agitation, the harassment and death threats probably all are notable, but how should it be integrated?

Actually Sarkeesian was not a part of it specifically before she released her video in her series on youtube. Before that she was actually not part of the discussion. She was harrased, it got media-attention and fused into the gamergate case. --Torga (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"fused into the gamergate case" - How? Why? On what basis? AFAICT, literally the only connection is that media outlets chose to talk about Anita's claim in the same articles that they talked about Zoe Quinn, in turn simply because it helped further their biased narratives. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll admit that I'm biased towards GamerGate but here goes;

Early on (around the end of August) someone threatened Anita over Twitter with rape and death threats, forcing her to move to a safe location. Although I condemn such an act, there are a lot of details that don't add up;

• The account that threatened her appears to be created solely to threaten her, as it was deleted shortly afterward,
• From what some people say, whenever you report death threats to the FBI, the warn you not to tell about it publicly. Anita did just that,
• The threats had perfect grammar and punctuation, and;
• The threats as a whole happened shortly after Anita released her then-latest video.

Some people claim that Anita or an associate of hers created the account solely to gain sympathy and attract attention.

Included are a couple of pictures regarding the Twitter account. The second one was from 4chan so expect some profanity and Jpeg artifacts.

• Picture 1
• Picture 2

The more recent incident occurred on September 5-6, when some Twitter user had the nerve to tweet child pornography to Anita's account. The account has since been reported, but some pro-Gamergate people claim that the account was made to discredit the movement. Again the account appeared to be a disposable account like before.

Speaking as a pro-Gamergate person, it appears that Anita is trying to stay relevant throughout this whole mess, to little effect. From a neutral perspective, it could easily be a troll with too much time on his/her hands.

Regards, 49.144.172.119 (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Just briefly, sorry, but the (very poor) arguments that Sarkeesian faked her own harassment are not viable, and don't warrant any coverage. - Bilby (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If these arguments are actually "very poor", then surely you should have no trouble refuting them, seeing as they were just presented to you? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

But the arguments that she was harassed for real are not viable as well. --Artman40 (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The reliable sources which support this statement are...? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The same which support the opposite statement. --Artman40 (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not particularly helpful. There are a wide range of reliable sources reporting that Sarkeesian was harassed. It is thus verifiable in reliable sources, which is what we require for a point of view to be included. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Taking another look at this: you're not even accurately representing the Wikipedia article here, which is why I've found the discussion so frustrating. Direct quotation: "Sarkeesian reported receiving death threats that forced her to temporarily leave her home." (emphasis mine) 70.24.5.250 (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Cite those sources, please. Until that your statements have no basis. 188.162.36.140 (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It's already cited to the BBC, a reliable source, and many others are available. Stop making negative claims about living people without any basis in reliable sources, immediately.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source. It is a major source but these are again, based on Sarkeesian's tweets which are not reliable. --Artman40 (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is meaningless, frankly. The BBC and the various other sources are reliable by our standards; our only prerogative is to accurately represent what they say. Period.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

But the sources in question don't support the claim that Sarkeesian was harassed; they only support the claim that Sarkeesian claimed to be harassed. They did no investigation of her claims. Their source is her Twitter feed where she talks about being harassed. So using them in defense of a statement that she objectively was harassed is in fact not accurately representing what they say. Meanwhile, you are writing off the analysis of what little evidence Sarkeesian has herself put forward, with nothing but a flat "it's not reliable" without actually considering the arguments made. Granted, those would probably violate WP:NOR, but still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The sources do support the statement that she was harassed, there is ample evidence that she was harassed and literally nobody in any reliable source is even bothering trying to claim that she wasn't harassed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's absolute nonsense. The only evidence presented of her being harassed is her word, and people repeating her word. The onus is on you to demonstrate otherwise. As for the lack of "reliable sources" refuting her claims, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, it's not nonsense, and the reliable sources already presented here amply demonstrate it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You're still arguing by assertion. I'm asking you to consider the evidence presented by those articles. Can you show me where they do any investigative work whatsoever, or indeed do anything other than cite Sarkeesian's claims on Twitter? I presented an actual argument to you; for you to simply reply back "no, it's not nonsense" is rude and terribly unconvincing. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It literally doesn't matter what you think of the evidence presented by those articles. Those articles are published by reliable sources and meet our verifiability standards. That you do not like the evidence they present, or believe the evidence is insufficient, or fabricated, or whatever is completely non-relevant to Wikipedia's use of those sources. If you wish to present reliable sources which disagree or present another POV, you are free to do so. If you cannot present any reliable sources supporting your POV (and no, Photoshopped screenshots on imgur are not reliable sources) then that POV will not be represented.

I really don't think you understand how Wikipedia works, and I suggest you read the verifiability policy, the NPOV policy and the reliable sources guideline. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

My argument is that those articles do not present any evidence whatsoever of the claim they're being used to support. A link to Sarkeesian's claim of being harassed is not evidence of her being harassed; it's evidence of her claiming to be harassed. This has nothing to do with disliking the evidence or considering it insufficient or fabricated. It has to do with it being outright misrepresented, both in the media and here. A reliable source that commits a logical fallacy is not absolved of that fallacy because of being a reliable source.

As for the rest, I could do without the condescension. Also, you're clearly extremely POV in this and it's absolutely insane that you would dare to quote WP:NPOV at me. Your POV is demonstrated by the fact that you're unwilling to consider whether the "reliable sources" this article is relying on even actually say what you think they do.

For just one example: the [reference http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29028236] used to support the quotation "The harassment expanded to include the feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian after the release of the next episode in her Tropes vs. Women in Video Games series coincided with the initial allegations towards Quinn" does not mention Quinn in any way, and does not mention #gamergate. To say that the video release "coincided with the initial allegations towards Quinn" is (a) factually incorrect (Sarkeesian's video was published on August 25; Quinn's ex's allegations were published on August 16) and (b) obviously in violation of WP:NOR. A line like this can only be written by someone who is biased towards painting the "gamers" involved as misogynists, by drawing a connection that has not been established in any way, and fraudulently representing a "reliable source" as doing so when it objectively doesn't.

Your belligerence is truly amazing. It's because of editors like you that I haven't registered an account and have thus far declined to donate to any Wikipedia fundraising drives. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The gamers, at least the ones actually doing the harassing, are misogynist. If you're going to approach this article from a those-girls-are-just-making-it-up angle, you're just going to wind up ignored. Tarc (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There has not been any evidence presented that the person who harassed Sarkeesian is a gamer. I am not approaching it from that angle, and you're misrepresenting me here in a way I do not appreciate. I am only saying that (a) the evidence isn't connected to the claim it's being used to support; (b) it's not established that the claim, even if true, is relevant; (c) there is a clear effort here to drive a narrative. But aside from that, to say that questioning these things will lead to being "ignored", only demonstrates your WP:POV. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It has to do with it being outright misrepresented, both in the media and here. If you have a reliable source which says the harassment is being misrepresented in the media, feel free to present it here, and we'll work to include that POV. We can't include POVs that aren't supported by a reliable source.

Do you really think anyone cares that you haven't donated to a Wikipedia fundraising drive? Because nobody does. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The BBC article has no mention of GamerGate, so I don't see how it's relevant to the article. Though I realize arguing against anything to do with Anita on Wikipedia is basically pointless Loganmac (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand. At least you were willing to review this. Thank You.49.144.172.119 (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately, wasn't sarkessian the one who opened the valve to let in all the third wave feminism and related political agendas into the gaming scene, resulting in the gaming press starting to deviate from the normal gaming news and discussions into more political and social (and personal) opinions, and more recently to start alienating their readership as well as many other members of the gaming community? If anything, I believe she triggered this whole thing by gaining her popularity. She's, as far as I'm aware, not directly connected to GamerGate, but the Quinspiracy might not have had the same weight had she never come into the gaming scene prior to it. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Skaruts (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

She is not tied up in this, except by people driving an extremely POV narrative. There are no reliable sources in this article for the claim that Sarkeesian's harassment and death threats have anything to do with #gamergate; there are only citations for the harassment, that are framed as making a link when they don't. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Independent, secondary sources (Which may not be gaming sources but are looking at this objectively from the outside) like the Washington Post have connected Sarkeensen's role as part of GG. We cannot deny that. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

They have editorialized that. Regardless, if you want to make that argument, then cite it. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No, they are looking from outside in, and see her name coming up alongside Quinn. See [1] [2] [3] (You'll notice that this last one does note Quinn's and Sarkeensian's incidents were two separate ones to start but since have become one). --MASEM (t) 02:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Other stuff?

FBI noted that they're looking into harassment of game developers, but allegedly was not in response to this controversy and just was coincidental timing. Should this be noted in the article? Possibly in the background section, because while it isn't directly related, might tie into past history of harassment of game developers?

The Guardian writer who ended up resigning after being attacked for writing a very pro-Zoe Quinn article while financially supporting for her via Patreon, as well as The Guardian's own response that they were the ones who cut a notice of disclosure because they hadn't felt it was relevant? Problem: Several of the sources involved with this ended up editing their articles after The Guardian edited their article to reflect that she had originally included a disclosure notice. Speaks well of their journalistic integrity, but makes it hard to source from the original sources which caused the whole thing. :(

What else? I've seen some other stuff mentioned, but I'm not sure how much of it is really notable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is a developing news event and should not be any more than a rough paraphrase of the Vox article, which spells out the whole ordeal neutrally and with due weight. If there are spots that need clarification from there, they can go up for discussion, but otherwise I think we'll start having BLP issues. @NorthBySouthBaranof, your edit overwrote mine—please be careful when previewing edit conflicts.  czar ♔ 22:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I was about to put in stuff about the FBI, but that leads me to a path that we need to start with events from roughly this time last year, eg: [4],[5], which is about when the IDGA recognized there was harassment in the industry and were taking steps to try to help developers cope. The events happening now are a culmination of that. As thus, the FBI and the IDGA met in July this year [6],[7] - prior to all the happenings with Quinn now - to also provide support. Given that this is trending to be more than just about Quinn but the relation between players and developers, I think this BG will be necessary but it feels awkward to have presently in the article. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

How about a 'reception' section?. It's clear the media has focused on one of the narratives, and that's important to notice: the dialogue of ethics is apparently less interesting for the media than harassment of women (and it probably is, but that's beyond the goal of the article). In fact, many of the sources we have don't even deal with the ethics dialogue. If we are to proportionally show every side of the story, we need to address how disproportionate the sources are?. I don't really know how to word it encyclopedia-wise but it could be a way to address the whole 'gamergate is about misogyny', while the gamergate folk are discussing something completely unrelated. After all wikipedia is not a newspaper, so we don't need to talk in the same extension about the misogyny dialogue. 88.27.100.236 (talk)

Finding Sources

There are a lot of sources on this, but many of them are very biased. While using biased sources is possible, it is not preferable, especially when we're discussing factual information (reaction of gamers, public harassment, ect.).

Some potential sources:

Bright Side of News - They had one of the best earlier reports on the issue. Pretty neutral, lots of citations of sources, looks like a pretty good article overall.

Vox has a more recent overview of the whole thing; seems like another pretty good source, pretty neutral.

Al Jazeera reported on it and even updated the article after the fact, which speaks well to their journalistic integrity and fact-checking. Originally noted the issue with the writer from The Guardian who was accused of corruption/improper ties to Zoe Quinn. Not sure if there is an archived version available anywhere of the original version.

Forbes discusses the scandal and the Striesand Effect, the Fine Young Capitalists, Phil Fish, and a lot of other things. Pretty broad overview, potentially lots of useful info, big name site.

What Culture had a "10 things you need to know about the #GamerGate Scandal" article which contains an overview of the whole thing.

Business Insider has two articles - Covers some of the reaction and back and forthing between the gaming press and gamers, as well as an overview of the situation.

Cinemablend talks about some of the issues involved with accusations of using claims of misogyny as a cover for discussion of integrity, but I'm not super fond of reporting on Twitter hashtags.

New Media Rockstars mentioned it early on, not sure if they're a great source, but it has links to original material and an overview.

Time magazine wrote something about the conflict between gamers and the gaming journalists.

The Guardian has some coverage of this as well; it was actually their second article.

The first Guardian article is something I'm not sure if we should cite the first or not; the conflict of interest issue there is problematic, but it could possibly be used as a cite for the claims of misogyny? Seems appropriate seeing as the person ended up getting mobbed and quitting as a result.

Kotaku changing their policy re: disclosure and support of game devs via Patreon.

Daily Dot has some info from early on about the thing.

Gamezone talks about the larger cultural context a bit.

Slate wrote about the death of gaming journalism and the fight between gamers and journalists, and the rise of bloggers.

Bustle

The Daily Beast: 1, 2

The Raw Story

The Independent

The Mary Sue

Recode

The Week

Paste There are a TON of sources, and there are many more I didn't mention, but which are potentially useful by the looks of things. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

A few more:

Town hall has an article discussing the whole sociopolitical position pushing.

Cinema Blend has another article about the source of some of these things, as well as contesting its depiction as misogynistic in nature. Interestingly, it notes that the hashtag started with Adam Baldwin, which I've since found several other sources repeating and, looking on Twitter, it appears to be the case. This speaks very poorly of the fact checking on all the stories which claimed that the hash-tag originated with 4Chan. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This one source does not override all of the other sources; we may note both statements and allow readers to decide which is correct. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to review WP:RS. If a source is doing a poor job of fact-checking, then it is not very reliable by definition. If we can verify that one source is right and another is wrong, then we go with the one which can be verified as a statement of fact. We might report what the other source falsely claims if the claims are notable, which it probably is - Zoe Quinn's response that it is all secretly a misogynistic conspiracy theory run by 4chan has been noted in numerous sources, though a large number have pointed out that it is simply untrue. The conspiracy theories of Zoe Quinn and some of the gamers are probably worth noting in a line or two, but we shouldn't present them as fact, merely as what the factions are claiming. However, my point re: the hashtag is less its notability in and of itself but rather that it is something which can be empirically verified and which has been misreported on in several sources, suggesting that said sources may not be reliable - if we can find something which is both easy to verify and wrong in their articles, it suggests that they aren't doing a very good job on fact-checking and thus probably are not reliable and thus should not be used. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This isn't Boolean logic; the NPOV policy requires us to weight viewpoints based on their preponderance in reliable sources. As our Verifiability policy states, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You're missing my point; the point is that if an article is poorly fact-checked, then it isn't a reliable source. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

And your evidence that the article is poorly fact-checked is...? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Arstechnica has also updated their article (see update section at the very bottom) to correct the fact that Adamn Baldwin has indeed started the hashtag #gamergate, this is easily verifieable with twitter analyzation tools such as topsy (also cited in the article), as such I do believe that this speaks very much for the fact that the articles Titanium Dragon has mentionend are poorly fact-checked, because the process of checking this fact is so exceedingly simple but nontheless was not performed nor the articles updated/corrected. As such the concern that these articles fail to qualify as reliable is very valid and I'd disencourage to use them. Perhaps it should be included in the wikipedia article that Adam Baldwin started the tag since this seems to be a common point of conflict when it's really a non-issue since it's easily verifiable 85.127.126.46 (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Two things: first, the fact ars went back and noted they corrected the article is the type of editorial evaluation we expect from reliable sources - yes, they may have published a mistaken fact but they actually addressed it and fixed, so they are still reliable. Second, when this article is rewrite, we're not going to have alot of specific accusations - as otherwise people will argue one side was wrong over the other and vice versa (eg why Baldwin's tweet may have been the first true #gamergate tag, the question that others have raised is if it was a tweet that one side pushed Baldwin to include - I'm not saying who is right or wrong, but there's a rabbit trail if you follow the accusations that's far too much potential for bias and problems in the future to go into detail); for all practical purposes, it doesn't matter the source of Gamergate's name or tag, but that it is the term used to define the issue. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I may have worded this badly, when I was talking about unreliable source I was referring to the articles that Titanium Dragon was talking about, the correction on Arstechnica puts it into the reliable category regarding this fact. However, please do correct me if I'm wrong, the credibility of a source should take precedence over presenting weighted viewpoints according to the the NPOV policy just based on the fact that no matter what input a source provides it's not relevant for wikipedia when said source has no credibility, which easily checked facts, that aren't checked in the first place nor corrected after weeks, attest to. Simply said editors should rather consider citing/using articles that got this fact straight or have been updated to correct this inaccuracy, over the ones that still have this error after weeks85.127.126.46 (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes, this would be true. When we work on rewriting this, we're going to be focusing more on fact, using sources that try to present the most accurate representation of all the issues that are in place. I've think we've got a lot of good sources now that will help to present the fair arguments from those supporting the GamerGate side (eg the transparency issues, etc.) But I do want to stress that we should not be building this too much up as a timeline of details but focus on the larger picture; the less we specifically get involved in the nitty-gritty of events, the more biased picture we can present and less likely to be challenged in the future. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

adding one more (probably one of the first "gamesites" to address the issue though it seems they edited it since then: http://gamesnosh.com/zoe-quinn-scandal/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.142.180.79 (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not an acceptable reliable source. See our guideline on reliable sources for help in how to identify reliable sources. Specifically, this blog has no identifiable editorial structure, no established history of editorial reliability and it appears to have been on the Internet for barely a month. It is a self-published source, which is not acceptable for any issue related to claims about other people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Rock Paper Shotgun addresses the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A few more sources:

Digitimes has another rundown of the whole thing in chronological order, and concerns about it impacting console sales and thus, manufacturing jobs in Taiwan.

Comics Gaming Magazine covers the issue, again in rough chronological order and talking about the various stages of the whole mess and controversy.

Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Digitimes is being discussed below. CGM has specifically been found to be unreliable by WPVG. Woodroar (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at that discussion, I'm not really sure if they came to the right conclusion, given that some of the reasoning contradicts WP:RS. I might have to bring that up again; they are, apparently, an actual magazine, and by the metric of not allowing things with submitted articles, we wouldn't consider The New Yorker to be a RS (of course, maybe I'm wrong; DO we consider the New Yorker to be a RS?). I think more troubling is the idea that the video game press has anything really notable for being reliable and doing good fact checking, given that this entire controversy is partially over exactly that. I mean, even Wikipedia classifies Kotaku as a gaming blog site. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I might not be opposed to using it as a valid opinion piece; once again we run into the same issue that the piece is pretty much just giving the author's opinion about the whole mess rather than actually attempting to ascertain any facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

APGNation did an interview of The Fine Young Capitalists regarding that whole issue with Zoe Quinn. Not sure how useful it is, but it has some potential use for sourcing claims made by them re: Zoe Quinn and them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The New Yorker - Takes the stance that it is all misogyny, is primarily sourced via Zoe Quinn, but does make note of the GamerGate sorts claims that it is about journalistic ethics and integrity as well.

Marketplace - Broadly discusses bullying, but has almost no specifics at all. Is mostly just an interview with Jennifer Hale about bullying in the video game community. Not sure how useful it is.

Uh, no, it's specifically and directly about the current controversy. "It seemed like an allegation of journalistic misconduct, but what followed was a flood of threats aimed at Zoe Quinn online." Very useful for demonstrating what was actually going on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The Telegraph did an interview with Zoe Quinn, who claimed that it was all misogynistic attacks on her; article also interviewed (much more briefly) a few GamerGate folks, who noted that they were angry at Zoe Quinn because of unethical behavior, and that their concern was journalistic integrity and ethics in the industry. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What Culture ran another piece on it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart 70.24.5.250 (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Brietbart is a very biased site and doesn't have the best reputation in the world for fact-checking. It might be useful for documenting opinions, but it isn't a great place to source factual statements. I wouldn't use it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Titanium Dragon and NorthBySouthBaranof: I find it hard to believe that we're claiming that Brietbart is "very biased" yet we consider Mary Sue, New Yorker, and TheWeek as "good" sources despite their obvious slant and editorial nature. Let's not get our political views involved in choosing NPOV sources especially if the source in question has written a well detailed article that's on par with our other sources. Brainplay (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Another point to remember to include is how some journalist websites changed policies to prevent reporters from participating in things like Paetrons/etc. following the initial claims [8]. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Cinema Blend has hit the high points of the above apgnation interview with TFYC, so we have a reliable source now on that side. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Paste notes Phil Fish calling Zoe Quinn's attackers rapists and notes his aggressive behavior. Crowdfund Insider talks about the hacking of The Fine Young Capitalists. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Background Sources

I think we should also find sources to talk about the background of some of the players involved here. Might be wise to gather some references on the background of hostility between gamers and the gaming press and gaming developers, past instances of misogyny in the industry, past instances of media corruption.

The Verge and a number of other sources documented the last time Phil Fish got in a fight on the internet when he supposedly cancelled Fez 2 after yelling at gamers online; a number of articles came out around that time noting his angry attacks on people. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

bias

this article is so biased and one sided. i think it should be gotten rid of. 99.253.30.53 (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)swami

Please be specific. The article should be improved. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Definitely. Edit boldly and all that. kencf0618 (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

AS it is now, the article doesn't even touch on the facts of its proponents, yet goes into detail on the misogynist accusations

We should have it divided into BOTH sides

We should include on the censorship outcry of proponents as Forbes' Eric Kain summarized it http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/

"This perceived radio silence on the part of the press led to early grumblings of ‘censorship’ among gamers crying foul play.

Radio silence wasn’t the only thing encouraging cries of censorship. Moderators on forums at reddit and 4chan deleted posts and comments related to the Quinn controversy. One YouTube commentator, Mundane Matt, had a video on the subject removed after receiving a DMCA takedown notice, apparently issued by Quinn herself. "

And the harassment wasn't only on one side, as he puts it

"The DMCA takedown caused well-known YouTuber TotalBiscuit (John Bain) to comment on the matter on Twitter. And while he maintained a fairly neutral stance, noting clearly that the facts were not all in, he was quickly lashed out against by members of the indie game scene such as Fez developer Phil Fish and others. Fish called TotalBiscuit a “gross nerd” setting the tenor for what snowballed into a much bigger debate."

Keep this neutral people, don't let Wikipedia fall into the censorship, also Zoe Quinn and Depression Quest articles should a mention to this since they're entirely notable because of this200.59.78.239 (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Portals

Torga, I must insist that you cease removing the Feminism portal from this page. It is incontrovertible, from any number of reliable sources, that this controversy involves feminism. You may not remove the portal simply because you don't like it or you disagree with that critique of the controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine, if you really believe its that important. Note: I did the last revision before i saw this. --Torga (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty important that the article reflect NPOV. I'm not sure why you think it's "neutral" to be in the Video games portal but not neutral to be in the Feminism portal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

So biased

I'm done with Wikipedia, this article looks like written by Zoe Quinn herself. If someone wanted to know what it was about, the only thing about what the proponents is "whose proponents state centers on the ethics of video game journalism" THAT'S IT

Then it goes about Phil Fish being doxxed, that Anita Sarkeesian made a video on Tropes vs. Women and stuff that has nothing to do with the matter. It cites TotalBiscuit but doesn't say what his opinion is.

I hope you guys are proud for killing Wikipedia. Everyone agrees that BOTH sides of the story should be in, this is ridiculous200.59.78.239 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Right now, we're not including opinions, we're including facts - and the personal impact on Fish and Sarkeesian are both sourcable to the overall issue. --MASEM (t) 03:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that there's heavy criticism of claims of harassment. While both Anite and Zoe claim to be harassed, and many articles cite it as a fact, the amount of harassing messages seems to be completely overhyped. There's not really any way to source the number exactly. What's the criteria for calling something harassment? Is one angry tweet enough, or does there need to be an organized campaign? Right now it's somewhere in-between. 173.51.120.127 (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

When secondary sources, reading what they can from forum posts and twitter feeds, and the like, call something "harassment". To what degree, yes, we can't say, but it's completely fair to say that both women have been harassed online in a public manner, as reported by reliable secondary sources like the Guardian. --MASEM (t) 04:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

One issue is that the harassment was not one way, which is not really presented in the article; Zoe Quinn's supporters harassed John Bain, for instance, for speaking out against censorship, and sent a Breitbart.com reporter death threats. Also, I'm still somewhat hesitant about the bit about Phil Fish, as it doesn't really present what happened in context - Phil Fish called the people who were angry at Zoe Quinn a bunch of rapists, so it was less harassment and more a flame war which escalated to doxxing. Zoe Quinn herself has a record of open aggression on the internet. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The article also does not make note of what happened to The Fine Young Capitalists, which got mentioned in a number of reliable sources and resulted in a member resigning from doing PR from them due to the aggression from the SJW camp. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The article essentially avoids talking at all about the "Gamers are dead" articles, TFYC's accusations, the Escapist's policy changes,Kotaku's advertisers pulling out, any claims of harassment against the Gamer Gate folks, anything about the #GamerGate or #Notyourshield hashtags.

It also ignores the Forbes articles and Al-Jazeera, fails to sufficiently discuss the Slate article, and makes no mention of the Escapist's articles regarding the subject.

All of these are verifiable facts which should be discussed, but have been avoided due to (what appears to be) severe editorial bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodamnfat (talk • contribs) 23:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleting information that tries to balance this article.

This is the fourth time someone deletes information that can give another perspective on Gamergate that actually can make this article more neutral. --Torga (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Some understanding of basic Wikipedia procedures is required to edit articles. Your source (now removed) includes the obvious "It is important to note that anyone can create an account on 4Chan and state nearly anything" so their account of a named living person is not suitable for use. That highlights the reason this article should be deleted—it's just he-said-she-said gossip where nothing has actually happened. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has happened? News sites like Kotaku had to basically make public announcements and supposedly crack down regarding the whole controversy. Citation Needed | 12:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Johnuniq is specifically talking about Quinn reporting to have all these logs, and 4chan responding to that. In the essence of WP, we can't say anything beside "this side claims this", "that side claims that". One edit removed was the claim that 4chan "debunked" Quinn's logs, which is not 1) factually reported by third parties and 2) is a biased statement as only a third-party is going to be able to make that assessment, as well as whether Quinn's logs actually are valid and show what she claims. In that sense, at the current time on that specific issue, "nothing has happened". --MASEM (t) 13:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that it is noteworthy independent of Zoe Quinn's general claims that it is all a misogynistic crusade against her. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

But there have been third party sources that reported on the debunking of the allegations/IRC logs provided by Zoe Quinn. One such instance is the article from the Escapist 85.127.26.20 (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That article does not dubunk her claims, but does point out, from the 4chan side, she's picking and choosing what cross-section of logs to share and that obviously will skew the picture ; but that's a tactic anyone defending themselves (irregardless if the are the "right" side) will do, pick the most problematic and hide the ones that don't help their case. However I do want to thank you for bringing that article to our attention as it seems to me to be the first RS that has actually spoken to the 4chan side to get some insight, and has a choice quote directly out of a 4chan'ers keyboard, "less clickbation sensationalism, a step up in terms of journalistic integrity and transparency of their reporting" in describing their goals, that we can include to balance the neutrality of this article. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not terribly versed in the guidelines of wikipedia, as such I tend to only bring sources to consider for real contributors. I was not suggesting that this article debunk her claims partly or even entirely, since this mess is pretty much a big he-said, she-said thing. But rather it's the most direct/official direct response coming from the 4chan side regarding the claims of ZQ and was reported by source that should be useable by wikipedia, glad I could be of help. However there are some erouneus facts in the claims of Zoe Quinn that concern the origin of the IRC Logs, no source seems to explicitly have mentionend this therefore I'm unsure if it can be used in the wikipedia article. Some of the screenshots/Logs that Zoe has used for her accusations did not come from the IRC channel "#burgersandfries @rizon" that is used by 4chan, this can be verified by looking at her tweets/screenshots and is also apparant from many sources that have picked up the story. As of now it's unsure who used the other channel. 85.127.26.20 (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That's why the language we're using now is "ZQ reportedly has IRC logs...", we are in no position to say her logs are right, just as we can't say 4chan's side has proven them false, but we do know she's brought these up and 4chan says they aren't a full picture - he said, she said, as noted. We just are careful with the wording (and yes, this Escapist article provides a better source to say what 4chan users have said). --MASEM (t) 18:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Too much one-sided

Currently the article is one-sided. It focuses mostly on claims of harassment, without going into detail what the nature of controversy was. Even left leaning newspaper like The Guardian, despite its defence of attempt influence gaming in line with their ideology, admitted that there are legitimate concerns regarding gaming journalism and ethics which were raised during this controversy, and this should be reflected in the article. There are more sources with more explanation like Al Jazeera that should be used as well.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There's probably even more than just the journalism ethics - it's this long-running sense of entitlement that some fans have towards developers that has been an issue since last year; this is just the culmination of current events. However, we don't have any good sources that connect all these chains together, yet. (This [9] is close, but not quite). --MASEM (t) 15:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"sense of entitlement that some fans have towards developed"-Oh dear, I believe the word is "consumers". Who demand a good product they are paying for. Now of course, some see or want to use games as tool of political engineering(see for example the paper "The New Laboratory of Dreams: Roleplaying Games as Resistance in Women's Studies Quarterly" where the author openly admits that games should be used for politically engineering players to accept certain views), but this is whole different story and not something to discuss here as this is not a forum.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to like, every cultural thing ever. Video games are now mainstream. They're going to be culturally critiqued. If you don't think games have been used to politically engineer players before, you've never played Call of Duty: Modern Warfare - the whole series is basically pro-war, pro-American propaganda. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems you have a very serious POV if you use words like these. As for me, having grown up under communist regime, I have seen enough games that were meant to "politically" educate" than entertain. There is a reason why people abolished that system.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Video games stopped being about just entertainment, oh, about the time the Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium was established. Which would be 1973. The first video games I ever played (Oregon Trail, Carmen Sandiego, Number Munchers, etc.) were defining examples of applying the art of video games to educate an audience. And they were massively successful at the time.

Video games are no different from any other art and entertainment form - they are subject to cultural criticism (in the sense of commentary, deconstruction, critique and analysis) from both within and without its community. As video games become increasingly popular and, yes, increasingly mainstream, it should be no surprise that they will increasingly be commented upon, deconstructed and analyzed. The ideologies and preconceptions of individual games and genres will be debated and dissected. That's what happens in culture.

The idea that video game simulations of war could be construed or overtly designed as political propaganda is hardly a novel or fringe idea. See [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

When people issue death threats because a dev decides to rebalance a weapon in a game, that's entitlement. And it's not consumers, its fans - the vocal minority - that are the problem. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article is biased because the sources are biased. I hate the way the article is written too, but it just goes to show how one-sided video games journalistsm is. You have some sources like Townhall, Slate, and The Escapist who are acknowledging Gamergate's issues, and the Forbes articles have been balanced fairly.72.89.93.110 (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

When you have one side that primarily only presents their opinion on forums, twitter, and other self-published sources, it is very hard to present a 100% balanced coverage. --MASEM (t) 00:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't criticizng Wikipedia's policies. It shows why gamers are frustrated, when they feel like they don't have a voice. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I didn't had the privilege of being born into a wealthy first world country where I would enjoy such games. However the discussion doesn't bring us to closer to resolving the issue here-overwhelming dominance of criticism in the article of people investigating the controversy and allegations of harassment. For neutrality purposes both sides should be represented and reasons for controversy explained. Let's not dilute the subject by off topic discussions.

While the discussion is interesting oesn't bring us to closer to resolving the issue here-overwhelming dominance of critical sources without explaining in detail the nature of controversy(details of which are covered by reliable sources like Al Jazeera).Let's focus on this.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Examples of corrupt reviews?

If we are going to say this is about corrupt reviews, shouldn't we link to some that are demonstrably corrupt? And if we don't have any of those shouldn't we be throwing "allegedly" in front of that claim? 67.170.87.35 (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be a BLP issue in that the review would identify whom the accusation that Quinn had encounters with, and we would not allow that. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's a BLP issue to identify Grayson, given the Kotaku article; but more to the point, there isn't actually any review that he wrote, because that allegation is demonstrably false. He never wrote a review of Quinn's game. He wrote something about a game jam that Quinn was involved in, before the relationship began and did not write anything about Quinn after beginning the relationship. [15] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I forget that Kotaku did clear the air on that. So yes, not a BLP to mention Grayson, but we do have to be careful on the wording. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

To clarify: it is not a BLP violation to name names which are found in reliable sources. What we try to do is avoid naming names which don't add to the article. See WP:BLPNAME. That is to say, we don't name her ex, or the game dev who hired her after their relationship, because that isn't especially important to understanding what happened. We name Quinn and Grayson because it is necessary to understanding the article. Note that just because something reflects poorly on someone does not mean it is a BLP violation, but the name needs to be notable and important to understanding what happened. As most of these people aren't notable in and of themselves, they don't need to be mentioned because adding their names does little to add to the story. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, we literally don't care that a game dev hired her after their relationship. That is literally none of the public's business even if it happened and the fact that not a single reliable source is discussing it should be a clue that it's not suitable for Wikipedia either.

The reliable sources are discussing the allegations of a journalistic conflict of interest, because that's a matter of clear public interest and the allegations did deserve a fair investigation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Multiple RSs have noted it, actually. It is potentially relevant because it was part of what set off the whole thing. It has not been focused on as much as the Grayson thing, so should not be given undue coverage, but that it involved a male game developer has been given mention in a very large number of sources, with a few of them going into depth about the issues of conflict of interest it raised, as well as the general ethical issues attached to such. However, the idea that it is "none of the public's business" is wholly irrelevant; we report what appears in RSs. What you personally believe to be the public's business is irrelevant, and given that some segments of the public feel that it IS their business, well, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Part of the cost of being a "celebrity"; your affairs suddenly become of public interest. I mean, I guess you could say that Quinn isn't really notable independent of all this, which is fair enough, but... well, this whole mess is pretty big in terms of coverage. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You keep claiming that "reliable sources" have discussed it, and yet you have provided not a single example of an actual reliable source which discusses it. Please link them here.

Hiring someone you know at a private business does not constitute a "conflict of interest" and it literally happens tens of thousands of times every day. It's called business networking. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Most workplaces would fire you immediately if they found out that you slept with someone immediately prior to hiring them, and would most likely terminate them as well. Indeed, many workplaces bar or frown upon workplace relationships, especially between supervisors and their subordinates, as they inherently present a conflict of interest. He is very lucky he is self-employed. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, "he is self-employed" would be precisely the point. He owns the business and he can hire whoever he damn well pleases. There is no "conflict of interest" because the business owner holds both interests. Which is likely why... no reliable sources have commented on the matter, which means this is moot. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If it's media, or journalism, there's another interested party: the public. Which is, from what I gather, the narrative the people behind gamergate push. That is, the kind of corruption denounced is of the soft kind (you scratch my back, I scratch your back), and the conflict is the lack of disclosure or transparency, which translates into distrust. Not sure the examples you are bringing align with what gamergate thinks (their 'movement' is hardly comprehensible), but the possible or alleged conflict of interest seems pretty much the core of it.83.53.151.86 (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct, which is why the allegations about Quinn's relationship with Grayson were notable and have been discussed in reliable sources. The apparent allegations about Quinn's relationship with some developer, on the other hand, have not been viewed as notable or of public interest, and hence do not appear in any reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

There's a typo under "Response". An "Aurbach" where there should be an "Auerbach".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Source issues, undue weight

1. Opinion articles are not the best sources for stuff, especially not for factual information. Several things are quoted to push a specific POV here; we need to avoid that, and these are people's opinions. Worse still, they're actually verifiable as incorrect in some cases, and thus are not particularly reliable because of poor fact checking.

Yes, such as the claims that there was any violation of journalistic ethics involved with Quinn's relationship - that is verifiable as incorrect. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Zoe Quinn and others claiming it is all a big conspiracy against them is probably noteworthy, but we should not give WP:UNDUE weight to their claims of a conspiracy theory.
2. Same applies to gamers claiming that Zoe Quinn and the SJWs are part of a conspiracy - noteworthy and notable, but we shouldn't present it as if it is true, nor lend it WP:UNDUE weight either.
3. We need to note that harassment has been going both ways - The Fine Young Capitalists were attacked and doxxed as well, John Bain was attacked, and both were done by Zoe Quinn's faction. Should be noted as it was noted in several RSs. As-is, the article implies it was one way. Indeed, part of the reason that Phil Fish was attacked was because he called people who were complaining rapists, and Zoe Quinn herself has been involved in the harassment of others.
4. We need to avoid too much "back and forthing". It is going to be somewhat inevitable, but we should try and avoid it in excess. We should present what happened, not try and counter things immediately; I think breaking out things into separate paragraphs would probably help with this. Have a paragraph which describes the gaming community reaction to the issue. Have a paragraph which describes the gaming press reaction. Have a section describing Zoe Quinn and her companions' reactions. Chronological/topical ordering will probably help with this. The article should flow naturally, not read like a bunch of people sniping at each other on the internet - we're talking about people doing that, we aren't doing it ourselves. This is Wikipedia, after all.
5. The article is weasely in the accusations against Zoe Quinn. Given that they are sourced in literally dozens of RSs at this point, and given that there is no REASON to be weaselly about them, what it should be needs to be made clear - it was an angry post by her ex presenting evidence that she cheated on him with Grayson, a reporter for Kotaku (and formerly Rock Paper Shotgun), as well as other gaming industry figures. That is PRECISELY what it is, and it gives the reader the full context. "alleged a level of impropriety" is just garbage, and the whole passage is terribly written. Given that this was the flashpoint, and given that the focus is on two different aspects of this - the SJWs claiming that it was pure misogyny because it disclosed that she cheated on him (i.e. slut shaming by an ex), while the gaming community was upset about the who she was cheating with (i.e. conflict of interest, nepotism, and pay for play) - it is important that we present this factually and not weasel about what it was. It is vital to understanding the whole controversy.

The accusations about Zoe Quinn are as described in the reliable sources.

We don't care about who "cheated" with whom - there's no marriage involved here and thus any claim about their relationship status is necessarily hearsay. A non-public-figure's personal relationships are not of the public interest except insofar as it involves matters of public interest - such as journalistic ethics.

There, a multitude of reliable sources describe the allegations of ethical violations as unfounded because the writer in question never reviewed Quinn's work and wrote nothing about her work after beginning the relationship. [16] [17] [18] [19] etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. First off, this is not a court of law. Secondly, it isn't "hearsay" - there is actual, physical evidence. Indeed, no source questions that he was her boyfriend - every source that mentions it mentions that he was her ex. That is simply not in contention at all. Really, no one has questioned the actual events he described at all, precisely because he outlined them quite clearly - the contention is pretty much entirely over their meaning. We aren't reporting on all the allegations because most of them aren't notable, not because they're not true. Thirdly, Zoe Quinn has attempted to make herself a public figure, who is at this point mostly internet famous for this. She certainly isn't notable for her game. Fourth, we determine the "public interest" via significant coverage in reliable sources - that's what notability is all about. Your odd claims about "what we care about" are simply false - we report about all sorts of stupid sex scandals on Wikipedia which were nothing BUT sex scandals, because they were noteworthy. You have grown enraged when I pointed out Monica Lewinsky and the Princess Diana/Prince Charles stuff, but they were just sex scandals and the latter one was absolutely nothing BUT a sex scandal, as there was no interest save for the fact that the people in question were famous.

There are indeed reliable sources which claim that they were unfounded. There are other reliable sources which have claimed otherwise, because they were (supposedly) friends beforehand, and the issue is game developers being too chummy with journalists, and using them to promote their agenda. Kotaku defended him, and that should definitely be made note of, but the idea that they were "unfounded" just because Kotaku claimed that they totally didn't do anything wrong, really, so stopped complaining doesn't mean that they were "unfounded". Doubly so given that they then changed their code of ethics for their employees. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Your attempt to compare Zoe Quinn to Monica Lewinsky or Princess Diana here is as ridiculous as it was on the talk page for her biographical article. I won't belabor the point, because it's obvious that there really isn't a comparison in any way, shape or form. This article isn't about Zoe Quinn's sex life and the same BLP rules apply here as apply in her biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You continually take offense at my pointing out that you are simply incorrect by citing articles which are about precisely the events you claim which we do not cover. You continually cite BLP without reading BLP, which notes that if stuff is important to understand what is going on (and it is, seeing as the whole claims of "it is all misogyny" center around it, as do the claims of inappropriate relationships with journalists) and it is reliably sourced (and it is), in it goes. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

1. We have tons of sources; we shouldn't need to cite biased ones. Several of the sources currently referenced suffer from pretty severe bias. It isn't impossible to use biased sources, but if we have a choice, it would be better to use unbiased ones over biased ones. Biased sources are less likely to be reliable, and we've already had at least one instance where an originally undisclosed conflict of interest in a biased article resulted in a journalist quitting after they got flak over it.

Every source has a potential bias; the CinemaBlend article that you promote above literally wears its point of view on its sleeve. That doesn't render it unfit for use; it simply means we must cite its statements and attribute its opinions. You can't possibly be claiming that the Time article is somehow unacceptably biased while the CinemaBlend article is somehow perfectly balanced. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course every source has a potential bias; all sources have this issue. That's not what I'm getting at. Some sources are more neutral than others, and then there are sources which, well, are like Paste, which outright states as fact that the people behind it are a bunch of misogynistic trolls. That ain't exactly what I'd use as a go-to reliable source on an article about a controversial subject. Would you suggest using an article which described the people protesting the shooting of Michael Brown as a bunch of jungle monkeys as a reliable source? I'd hope not. Same thing, more or less. Do you think using Breitbart as a source for this article would be a good idea? I mean, maybe we could use it to present what they had to say (and the guy ended up getting death threats for the article), but I'd prefer not to use it as a RS for anything factual because they're a severely biased source. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The CinemaBlend article outright states as fact that all of the mainstream media reports on the issue are false and biased. Please explain how this is "neutral" while Paste is not.

We don't use Breitbart because that website has a long history of factual inaccuracy, partisan bias and outright falsification of facts. There exists a consensus on Wikipedia that it is unacceptable as a source for anything related to living people. There is no such consensus that Paste is unacceptable. Therefore, yes, we can use Paste but not Breitbart. If you wish to challenge either of these consensuses, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is a place to open discussions on the suitability of disputed sources.

Wikipedia weights points of view based on their prevalence in reliable sources. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

This means that if a majority of reliable sources express the viewpoint that GamerGate is largely driven by misogynistic views... then yes, we are required to make that viewpoint the most prominent one. Wikipedia is not a place to right perceived wrongs in mainstream media coverage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

We can only use a given source if it is reliable on a given subject; we rely on The New York Times for world events, but we rely on scientific papers for subjects such as global warming, even though they are frequently in the news. Paste Magazine itself notes that it doesn't really fancy itself much on the subject, and the bias in the article is pretty clear, seeing as it is proposing a bizarre conspiracy theory. I'm not terribly familiar with Paste in general; looking over the site as a whole, it seems to have a bunch of lists and light entertainment news. Pretty much all "reliable sources" have variable levels of reliability depending on the subject matter and the specifics of the content; we use the Wall Street Journal for some business reporting, and they have a very good reputation for some kinds of reporting, but we don't rely on their op-ed section to tell us about Obama's latest tax policy. There are sections of the NYT we'd never cite for anything other than self-citing, and there are others which are great.

Incidentally, re: the article in Time: do you know who Leigh Alexander, the person who wrote that article, is? Leigh Alexander writes for a bunch of these folks - including Kotaku, one of the companies which has been accused of being unprofessional - as well as does PR for game developers. On the one hand, a lot of game journalists write for a bunch of places. On the other hand, well, what is she going to do - say that the people who pay her are totally corrupt, and that what they're doing is wrong? A conflict of interest is one of the things we look out for when we're looking for reliable sources. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

1. This article seems biased to me due to the bulk of the sources presenting only one side of the whole story. Since GamerGate is mostly a debate between many "public" video game journalists and anonymous internet users, the bias towards one side of the argument is predictable. I don't know of the proper way to fix this issue, Wikipedia's rules on reliable sources are usually a good thing to ensure high quality. But in this case it is only causing one voice, that of anonymous posters to be completely ignored in favor of well connected video game journalists, who anonymous claim to be corrupt in the first place. This is my first time editing so I am sorry if I mess up on the proper format. Inuyasha8888 (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Issues with claims&sources

There quite a lot of problems with this page. 1) It's totally one-sided 2) It names a couple of cases as 'proof' where it only has been claims, and not verified (eg Quinn and the others). While I don't argue against there having been proofs for some women in the industry having been harassed, a lot is still what it is - claims. Disputable claims at that. Newspapers and gaming websites present it as fact, but it's a still one-sided story. 3) Sources. So far NO newspaper or site mentioned has actually really much dug into it - they all copy&paste the same drivel over and over regarding gamers being 'male pigs' and 'misondrygenists'. There are people out there counter-researching, but due to the Wikipedia 'source requests' it's impossible to 'proof' the counterresearch, because no newspaper or knowledgeable site even tries to produce the counterstory. 4) 'Warediting'. I forgot the correct name for that. I won't even need to look at the article history this is happening.

Like a lot of things - Wikipedia really needs to look at the procedures etc. This way, a lot of potentially falsified information is getting in (or noteworthy info missing), create an biased view upon something - while the Wiki should be neutral, non-biased. Just my 2 cents. MicBenSte (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, what is the argument for the other side to justify their actions? Ignoring sourcing requirements for the moment, so in hopes of possibly finding a source? There is one "fair" argument I've seen, that is that there are some people that don't like the idea of video games being used to push a political agenda (I think I saw this in the LA Times article), which is a fine opinion to have and one I think we can source with reliable ones. But after that - I've got a hard time thinking that any reliable source is going to try to understand why the need to issue death threats and target certain people for doxxing, short of psychologically analyszing these (Which is not going to give a nice picture most likely).

The two cases (I am assuming Fish and Anita here) are well-established to be true. I even saw the start of Fish's doxxing when they hacked his Twitter account, and Antia's is a repeat of previous harassment. The sources reporting on both cases are the highest RS that we have for video game coverage so no reason to doubt them. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? You're missing a LOT.

From what I've been able to gather from all kinds of sources, the following all happened:

- The Quinn-incident happened first. A nasty business that was, the ex-BF going public with stuff. A large part of the stuff got debunked, and some people started to think Quinn was part of a plot.

- Verified threaths and harassments against Quinn were made. As far as I am aware, those are under investigation.

- In the meanwhile for a long time the Fine Young Capitalists had been working on a project to facilitate women being able to work on games. However, shortly after the threaths against Quinn by so far unknown parties, for some reason Quinn lashed out against FYC, and a lot of her followers started to insult, harass and threathen FYC.

- [redacted]

- The news about the Quinn' harassments came out. Quinn claimed continued harassments by 4chan and her 'infiltration' of 4chan.. However, those claims are irrefutable debatable, since tens of people who are regulars to 4chan have both laid out the structure of 4chan, as well as noting that the 4chan chat is noteable avoided - most happens on the forums/talk pages. Any 'OP', as Quinn claims to have witnessed, is more inclined to go through the forums, then through chat. Thus Quinn's 'proof' in that regard is highly debatable.

- Gaming media reported on the 'Quinn case', and started to point fingers

- 4chan (I'm not sure exact which subforum it was, either /b/ or /v/) raised money for FYC. Over $15.000 according to the interface host.

- Due to the tone of the gaming media and the reactions of devs of games and others on social media, people started to wonder for real if there was no corruption in the gaming media. Social media and others went into high gear to investigate the ties between several people originally involved in the 'Quinn Case', [redacted].

- [redacted]. A part of the regular media also copied those articles, who are in hostile tone a lot alike.

- The 'war' started due to the latter.

Due to the fact that the gaming media themselves are under scrutiny, and a few have even fired employees over misbehaviour, I highly recommend to in this case denote a lower 'trusted' rating for the gaming media, since they themselves are involved and have several dubious cases against them when it comes to independence in this.

PS: If anyone notes I've made an mistake, feel free to correct me with an additional note - this is what I that quickly remember off the top of my head. MicBenSte (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a head's up, Wikipedia is not a forum and we're not here to discuss this situation in general, especially when it comes to negative information about living persons. As such, I wouldn't be surprised if a bulk of what you wrote gets removed and possibly rev deleted; you may want to consider removing it yourself as a show of good faith.

What I believe User:Masem meant is this: what is the argument to justify their actions as reported in reliable, third-party published sources? Because that's what we're here to do: document what reliable sources say about the situation. We're not here to present a false balance, so if the vast majority of the sources take one particular side then we'll state that, and we can also state that a minority position is a minority position. Woodroar (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Even moreso, I'm just looking for reasons that doesn't have to be from RS sources, if only to help potentially find more RS sources that cover those facets. I can understand (though I personally can't see the justification for the actions) the arguments some offered about bringing political messages into video games and complaining about that. But that's a small fraction of the argument put forth by the other side. But that's the only "reason" I've seen. The rest seem to follow from the nature of who and what 4chan is and the group-think that often occurs there that is recognized by other media, and hence why any further arguments are being ignored by the press, because they see it as "more of the same" nonsense. If there is a legit argument that the other side has beyond the above one, I'd love to know what it is and look for sources to help support that better to help balance the article. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Woodroar, why should any of that be rev deleted? It doesn't contain grossly insulting or degrading material nor oversightable information. If you believe some of it to be a BLP violation you can selectively remove it yourself. Diego (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Masem, the argument that there's nepotism and conflicts of interest with respect to advertisement in the gaming press is different from the complaints of political content in games, and it has been well articulated in reliable sources. Diego (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's right, that's a point too, and we can include that for sure as well. I just feel that when it comes to 4chan, there is also a lot of "me too"-ism and getting on the bandwagon, which is why the media will often trivialize 4chan's intentions in other stories. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. It's a strange feeling when you can easily verify the development of ongoing events from the sources where they're happening, yet there's no reliable source that will cover them in a way we can use. Diego (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's why I think it is best to not try to expand this article until the whole mess has settled down and more sourcing looking back on it as neutrally as possible can make heads or tails of it. We can report the core, documentable matters of why this story is getting wide coverage (harassment and death threats of developers) which is going to make it appear biased but no more biased than how the media is reporting it. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The POV view expressed here is all well and good - but can someone please tell me what this GamerGate article is about?

• If it's about the harassment of Zoe Quinn - then that should be in her article.
• If it's about the alleged harassment, by unknown people whose links to Quinn are unclear, of FYC then that should be in her article.
• If it's about harassment of Anita Sarkeesian, then it goes in her article along with all the stuff she gets each time a video is released.
• If it's about journalistic ethics, then it should go under Video Game Culture or similar article if it's sufficiently notable (I really don't think so).
• If it's about a flame war on the internet over the use of SJW / Gamer / 4Chan - then I'm not sure that this article can really be supported by secondary sources as pretty much all the secondary sources only talk about the subjects in the terms of the harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian. I also don't think a flame war on the internet is any more notable than any other.
• If it's about social activism, then that should go under gamer culture too.

Complaining about the current state of the article is pretty much redundant if the content of the article is based on an amorphous blob of personal opinion, heavily editorialised social media content which is not what wikipedia is about. Koncorde (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a larger issue here, that all these events are tied to, and it might be about general "Harassment in video game development", with "Gamergate" being a subsection of it. Events of this nature started last yet (COD devs getting death threats for rebalancing the game there, for example), and this is more of the same, but now taking the political/ethical-driven nature. But I need to see dust settle to make heads and tails of the right order. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds a bit POV, and recentism. Video Game Culture is likely the main place, and even then there's an argument that this has absolutely nothing to do with games. Koncorde (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That would be giving undue weight to opinion of one of the sides, which treats all criticism of nepotism and politicization in gaming as "harassment". While no doubt some harassment did occur(from both sides), not all criticism is harassment.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No, we have to be careful be clear that honest criticism is not harassment, and we can point to examples which (I'd have to check sources to make sure) TotalBiscuit found himself on a DCMA claim after scathingly reviewing one game but otherwise giving his honest opinion, and why his comment about the same when Quinn had criticism about her reportedly removed under a DCMA claim. Expanding the scope beyond GG would help to identify that there are common themes that have been running through the gaming industry and culture as a whole for a few years, and this is a turning point with GG. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources that explain what GamerGate is about, like Al-Jazeera, Forbes or even The Guardian(which while noting clearly that it takes sides, admitted that not all of criticism is harassment and there are legitimate concerns). We can base the article on them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No, they talk about "GamerGate" but the level of conflation with other unrelated matters leave it very much lacking in definition. Koncorde (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed additions

In the interests of fairness and openness, I think we should open a section here to discuss proposed additions to the article, so that we can come to consensus and avoid further edit-warring when the article is unprotected. Any editor should feel free to propose wording below, with appropriate sources, for community discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I know I'm rehashing a bit what I said earlier, but I wish to propose to at least take a look at https://medium.com/@cainejw/a-narrative-of-gamergate-and-examination-of-claims-of-collusion-with-4chan-5cf6c1a52a60 (not my blog, got linked to it by someone) and http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/ (I know Forbes is currently under discussion due to the writer/blogger issue as a source). As far as I can tell, the former source has about all facts spot-on and verified mostly but is an 'unverified source', while Erik Kain of Forbes has most of it correct and is - for now still - an 'verified source'. How long that is going to last, is up to the appropiate discussion board.MicBenSte (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

:Regarding the sources - as RS, they're not what-is likely. For now, the two pages I linked are one of the few who have *some* manner of the dignity and at least try to portrait the truth. Other sources mostly are highlightning one side of the story or the other, and/or do so in an unacceptable manner.

Note: some developers and others moved from the #GamerGate tag to #Gameethics to discuss ethics in the gaming industry as a result of the muddied #GamerGate debate. Worthy of trivia note?MicBenSte (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that the Forbes article is presumptively a reliable source - though I would note that, like most of the sources on this issue, it's opinionated. Medium is an open-access platform and its content has to be treated as a self-published source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change

I am proposing this change to the second graf of the background section, based on Masem's version:

The incident led to broader allegations on social media that games developers and gaming media are too often closely connected. Others have observed the increasing focus on social representation and culture meaning in video games by some video games writers. The pejorative term "social justice warriors" has been used by those critical of the current state of the industry to refer to those game developers and journalists that have introduced such content into video games. Keith Stuart of The Guardian summarizes that many gamers have become dissatisfied with the game industry, leading to a schism between game developers and game players:

...The community is angry. They see conflicts of interest and corruption in every tweet and conversation between journalists and developers; in every positive preview. They want transparency in the games press. They are tired of being dictated to by writers they refer to as social justice warriors, interested more in the issues of representation and sociocultural meaning in games and game development, then the content itself.

Writing in Vox, Todd VanDerWerff notes that the controversy is also seen as attempt to silence feminist and other outsider voices in gaming:

... The #GamerGaters have some actually interesting concerns, largely driven by the changing face of video game culture. But those concerns have often been warped and drowned out by an army of trolls spewing bile, often at women. "The ‘official' line is that it's about a demand for more transparency and better ethics in games journalism," Keith Stuart, games editor for The Guardian, told me in an email. "This in itself is absolutely fine — as I wrote in my own piece, we should all be skeptical of the media. But whatever the higher motivations of some of those involved, the debate has had such a toxic undercurrent of abuse and anti-feminism that it has poisoned the whole concept."

This presents both arguments - the "gamer" argument and the "critics" argument - evenhandedly. The Paste piece would be moved to the Reactions section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really, uses non-reliable sources, has POV giving undue weight interpretation of the events to one of the sides, without neutrally presenting arguments of the other.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you now claiming that Vox Media is not a reliable source? On what grounds do you make this claim? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that you dropped the unreliable pasty article.Thank you. However you haven't addressed the other issues, you have cherry picked comments that push POV by giving undue weight to interpretation of the events to one of the sides, without neutrally presenting arguments of the other. Too much focus is on allegations, and the lengthy opinionated quote claiming the other side are "army of trolls" obviously is not suitable for neutral representation of the issues.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The first blockquote is an interpretation of one side's argument. The second blockquote is an interpretation of the other side's argument. We may not have one without the other. Please feel free to suggest your own second blockquote if you think you can come up with a better one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest a neutral lead without any opinionated blockquotes which can be given later in responses section, for example those covered by Al Jazeera which found them notable to mention.The lead should list arguments of both sides without giving any favors to either one as well as short background info--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Then feel free to propose a rewrite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

notyourshield

This is an important development, the inclusion of which would better represent what's been happening.

Cinemablend : "[I]t's being misreported that #NotYourShield – a hashtag that's being used alongside #GamerGate – was created by 4chan to 'weaponize minorities'. The hashtag – as noted by the one young fellow who started it in the video up above – was used to help give [minorities] a voice."

Metaleater : "[G]aming media [...] was accused of censoring dissent and muzzling coverage. Campaigns to promote alternative sites began, as well as an ad-blocking campaign [which targeted sites] associated with "Social Justice Warriors" [...] This eventually led to the #notyourshield hashtag, a response to the belief that columnists [were] speaking for minorities instead of treating them as individuals." Willhesucceed (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"The accusations of misogyny, racism, and bullying against 4chan and Reddit and others are also warranted. I'm sure I will take crap for saying that, but GamerGate claims to want ethical journalists who tell the truth. The truth is that just by using the words "misogyny" and "racism," I risk being doxxed because someone may decide to lump me in with those they have declared the "enemy." That's a culture of fear that 4chan and Reddit share culpability in. One person posts something. Anger swirls. Calls to arms follow. Out of the hundreds who see the original posting, one cruel person decides to do something illegal and scary about it. This is how doxxing and death threats gestate in the 4chan community, and the community as a whole does bear responsibility for this. No matter how many times they told people to behave, there are minimal consequences when they don't."

A pretty fair accounting of the issue — it's labeled an opinion piece so it has to be used with an in-text cite, but I think it's more or less a good source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Twitter : Question: this image is part of a larger one posted in the Cinema Blend article. Can it be included in this subsection, since it's already been referenced, even though it's not the entire image? Willhesucceed (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

We cannot post images that are not released under a free license except in very limited circumstances. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I meant apart from that ... I'll assume that means it's allowed. I'll be looking into whether it's actually usable.Willhesucceed (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If it's freely-licensed, it might be usable as an illustration, although obviously not as a source. It would be an editorial question as to whether it's sufficiently interesting or important to merit inclusion.

I note that its status as a collage of other pictures makes it highly problematic from a free-use standpoint — we would need to know that all of those other pictures included in the picture were released as free use. One can't just take a bunch of copyrighted images, photoshop them into one new image and then make that image freely-licensed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The licencing issues are problematic, but more importantly I think that given that our sources for NotYourSheild are pretty weak, and that there's particular doubt in those sources as to the movement's veracity, we need to be careful about giving it too much weight here. I think an image is out of line for what is at best a footnote based on the sources we have now. -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair concern. I'll hold off until/if it gets more notice. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

A great many posters on #notyourshield have been harassed by people opposed to Gamergate, particularly by claiming those tweeters to be straight, white males without evidence, and then trolling them into proving themselves. One recent example; another (WARNING NSFW; after receiving proof, the troll apparently actually photoshopped pornographic artwork onto it in a futile attempt to discredit the photograph). This is especially dangerous WRT LGBT individuals, who may be subject to violence as a result of outing themselves. The clearly demonstrable harassment of large numbers of people who are directly involved in the Twitter discussion is being completely ignored by what editors here would like to call "reliable sources"; meanwhile, alleged harassment of Anita Sarkeesian is reported without question in this article, and treated as relevant for no reason beyond the say-so of those sources. The bias is absurd. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

We only summarize what reliable sources report, not anonymous IP's. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that. I'm commenting in order to protest the bias. Again: how can you expect your RS policy to provide unbiased coverage of a topic that is explicitly about criticizing those "reliable sources" for their bias and corruption? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. We report what reliable sources say. If they are incorrect or inadequate, then that is up to other reliable sources to correct the matter, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. If you disagree with Wikipedia's policies, then take the issue to Wikipedia:Village pump. This page is for a discussion of improvements to this particular article, not disagreements with site-wide policies. Gamaliel (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Question: For the purpose of establishing that something was said on Twitter, does a link to the tweet itself qualify as a reliable source? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't use Twitter links as sources ever, because Twitter itself is not a reliable source. With limited exceptions, there is no verification of identity (and thus no accountability) and, by its very nature, Twitter lacks any editorial controls or fact-checking structure. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as the reliability of sources is contextual and depends on how they're used and the content they support in an article. Twitter posts are reliable for proving the existence and contents of that Twitter post, and they are sometimes used as such. However, this is only done when an independent source has analyzed the post and established why it's important to the topic, and should be included in combination with that source. Diego (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

So what I'm understanding from you both is that no matter how much harassment of #notyourshield posters occurs on Twitter, no matter how much of it I can directly point to, this evidence cannot be considered noteworthy or in any way included in the article until a source that Wikipedia editors consider "reliable" deems it such and writes about it as such? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much yes, that's the most essential way to decide what can be written in Wikipedia. However, *you* can play a part in deciding what sources can be considered reliable, as you are also a Wikipedia editor. Diego (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not analyze primary sources like tweets to decide whether or not they are important, that is the job of journalists and historians. Wikipedia uses reliable secondary sources to provide a summary of what has been deemed important by writers and experts. Gamaliel (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but in that case, I have to object to existing content of the article. The third sentence of the Background section: "Kotaku editor-in-chief Stephen Totillo stated that the writer had not written anything about Quinn after beginning the relationship and had never reviewed her games." (Incidentally, Mr. Totilo's name is misspelled there.) The source for this is Mr. Totilo's article on Kotaku. How is that not a primary source? That's right near the start; I'm sure I could find other similar problems with a more thorough examination. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Tolito's statement is actually a first-party, secondary source. Kotaku is representing the journalist in question, but Tolito is writing this in a secondary manner to explain there was no issue. However, irregardless of that, other third-party secondary sources have pointed to Tolito's statement as evidence that the claimed "sleeping for reviews" claims made by the ex-bf are false. --MASEM (t) 06:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Then cite those third-party sources, not Totilo. Kotaku cannot reasonably be considered a reliable source for anything. It's an obvious clickbait site, and it's especially not reliable WRT the question of its own journalistic bias. Even the New Yorker is not a reliable source for a question like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.5.250 (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't analyze primary sources, but we can use them to verify what they contain, which is what the IP user asked. Those are two different usages that serve different purposes. What you say is true, though we should be careful not to imply that we don't use primary sources as that would be misleading. Diego (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Related to the not your shield bit, I find this part jarring: "But when there is clear evidence that 4chan is trying to bolster Gamergate's fight by pretending to be minorities and women, all credibility is lost. ...." There is clear evidence of this? Where is the clear evidence? Its a post on 4chan. I know Im a newbie, but that cannot be up to wikipedia standards. Also I see clear evidence of the contrary. There are several youtube videos of minorities and women using the #gamergate #notyourshield tags. Can there at least be a mention to the possibility of it not being contrived by 4chan? At the least, can you take down that quote on the basis its basically one degree away from a screenshot of 4chan? 69.206.174.119 (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That statement is sourced to the website of a highly-reliable source; to wit, On the Media, a radio program produced by a well-respected journalistic group and aired on National Public Radio stations. It is in-text cited so that readers know it is the opinion of that website. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

However, the second part of the quote comes out of nowhere. I know there is an issue about people doubting the veracity of the people using #notyourshield, but we have no sourceable evidence that this is a significant number of them (a random screenshot from 4chan is not one), and as such, that position has to be treated as a fringe and not appropriate for WP. There is something about how the legitmate voices are getting lost in the noise from those engaging in harassment and other aspects, so the first part of the quote is fine. --MASEM (t) 06:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the difference is that we're not making a claim of fact, we're making a claim about an opinion with an in-text citation. We're stating that it is the opinion of Alex Goldman, who writes for On the Media, that there is clear evidence of this. It's placed in the "Responses" section, which further makes it clear that it's an opinionated statement. We don't require that reliable sources cited within an article further source their own opinions and allegations — it's enough that it has been published by a reliable source.

If we go by your thesis, we would have to remove the statement by Liana Kerzner that gaming journalists have made "unprofessional, anti-intellectual, and dehumanizing" generalizations, because we don't have any reliable source for that either. But we shouldn't remove it, because it's a statement of her opinion and it doesn't need to have a source backing it up.

Similarly, we would also have to remove Erik Kain's statement that "the video game space has been heavily politicized with a left-leaning, feminist-driven slant" because that's not backed up with any reliable sources. Once again, it's not required because that statement is his opinion and we shouldn't remove it.

Your edit completely gutted the meaning of the sourced article and I have replaced the full and complete quote from the article to make clear his point — a common one in reliable sources — that the trolling and misogyny have drowned out any meaningful discussion in the movement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Except, where this accusation that people behind notyourshield are not the people they claim to be is out of left field in this article as it is. However, I am going to try to work [20] this in which then will make that point more relevant. --MASEM (t) 07:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Problems with a source-extremely biased and emotional language. Doesn't seem to me as reliable as RS

I have reviewed one source used called "Why We Didn't Want to Talk About "GamerGate", Garrett Martin, Paste, Sept. 4, 2014" It consists of extremely biased and emotional language, combined with insults, I will quote some parts:

• "Something idiotic and ugly and depressing and laughable"
• "They call it #GamerGate, because they have absolutely no self-awareness whatsoever"
• "That’s who is behind this entire situation: anti-woman trolls"
• "All the conspiracies and trumped-up claims of “evidence” of collusion among developers, press agents and the press spread by the #GamerGate founders are lies and distortions"

Based on the above, the article seems mostly to be a personal essay full with emotional outbursts, insults, and a very engaged POV. As such I wouldn't think of it as Reliable Source, that can be presented as representing objective information. I suggest either removing it completely, or attributing the opinions in full in responses section below.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I will agree that we should not be using the Paste article as part of the "factual" aspect of the problem. It's an opinion and can be used for Reactions. I'll try to see if I can a neutral source that summarizes it better. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

At least in terms of establishing the nature of GamerGate, I read through and found the Guardian article to be very fair, identify three issues from the gamers side, and thus have remove the Paste statement in favor of the Guardian one. --MASEM (t) 19:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(And to be clear, while the Guardian does show support for the "SJW" side and against the GamerGate side in the last part, the article attempts to lay out the issues on both sides fairly before applying the writer's personal opinion and notes that not everyone rallying under the GamerGate side is necessary in the harassment category.) --MASEM (t) 19:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I must ask that you self-revert your edit to this protected page, Masem. There is no consensus that the Paste article is inappropriate; it is an indisputable reliable source and its opinion does not disqualify it from use in the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You say it's "an indisputable reliable source"; yet MyMoloboaccount disputed it, and you provide no evidence for your assertion.

It's an organized publication with a verifiable editorial structure, identifiable oversight of content and an established reputation. Which means it meets the reliable sources criteria as a secondary source and is presumptively a reliable source. As the statement sourced to the magazine is an opinion, we provide a in-text citation. If the user wishes to dispute it, the Reliable Sources noticeboard is right over there, a central location for discussing source reliability. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Masem. I am not opposed to looking at how to rewrite that section and using your version as a basis, but we should discuss and come to a consensus on the rewrite beforehand, and I object to removing the source entirely. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Paste source can be used elsewhere, but it should not be used in the section that is trying to lay out the facts of the case, due to the immediately of which side it takes. It can be an opinion piece , certainly. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian piece isn't laying out any "facts" either, Masem - you've used it to articulate one side of the argument about what the controversy is about. We can certainly use the Paste piece to articulate the other side of the argument. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian piece, by the end of the article, is clearly against the GG groups (the gamer side), but it fairly presents all the arguments they use to describe why these gamers are angry. There are plenty of other sources that lay out the other side of the issue, as well as the Guardian one (eg it points out that he game industry works like any other media industry, that collusion between journalists and the content creators is an unavoidable aspect of anyone working in this type of industry). It does not try to inject its opinion unless after it has laid out the facts. Compare that to the Paste article that comes out swinging against that group. (Additionally, in terms of RS-ness, I would put the Guardian above Paste in general) --MASEM (t) 19:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, you're missing the point that there is a significant POV that the entire thing is manufactured, and if we're going to extensively blockquote someone laying out the "gamer" perspective, so to speak, then we have to extensively blockquote someone laying out the "critical" perspective. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can use Vox and Keith Stuart's discussion here. I will amend my proposed version. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, and herein lies the issue: virtually all of the sources discussing this are opinionated. If you're arguing to exclude opinionated pieces, we'll have to move CinemaBlend, Forbes, etc. out as well. If you strike all of the sources which could reasonably construed to have an opinion, we're left with pretty much nothing to write about and this is going to be a very, very short article that doesn't say much. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's incredibly disingenuous. The language and rhetoric in the Paste article is nothing like that in the CinemaBlend and Forbes articles. Erik Kain is not throwing around insults and editorializing about the motives of others without evidence based only on his personal opinions. It's frankly insulting of you to suggest anything like that.

If you have issues with other sources, feel free to discuss them in appropriate section, so that this discussion doesn't become focused on another issue. Most reliable sources such as Al Jazeera avoid insults or emotional language, this one doesn't, making it unreliable and not objective.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, uh, no, you don't get to dictate what gets discussed in a talk page section. If you're going to assert that a source is unusable because it's opinionated, then it's fair game to suggest that many other sources are unusable for similar reasons. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That is an obviously and blatantly disingenuous misrepresentation of MyMoloboaccount's argument and you should be ashamed for making it.

"Emotional language" doesn't doesn't disqualify one from being used as a reliable source. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It does, emotions per se contradict reliability. At best it could be used in responses section with full attribution. If the issue persists we can take it to WP:RS.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, uh, no, it doesn't. Please go ahead and take it to WP:RSN. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur; I noted previously we shouldn't use Paste. We have a lot of other options, so there's no reason to use a biased source when we can used unbiased ones. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems there is a consensus from several other users not to use the source, the only user objecting is NBSB who brought the emotionally engaged source into the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I am amused that you think there is anything resembling a consensus at this point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It is hypocritical of you to call out others by saying there is no consensus, and then unilaterally declare the source reliable.

Pretty sure you are the only one supporting the use of this piece as objective source of information.Of course there is a debate on other subjects, but this one reached consensus so far. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Several sections missing

• Censorship on various sites about this subject.
• The fact that GamerGate is not about harassment.
• Youtube videos which are a major factor of providing coverage on the topic are not mentioned.

--Artman40 (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Gamergate" is almost exclusively about harassment of several women in the gaming industry. The "ethics in game journalism" is at most a side-bar to the entire affair, an excuse made by some quarters to justify the harassment. As for youtube, it is not a reliable source for use in the Wikipedia; what "AngryFan12345" decided to vlog about regarding the topic is not important to us. Tarc (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the first video that kicked the GamerGate events off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Equc1QnQ9rw Is it about harassment? Also http://attackongaming.com/gaming-talk/reddit-mod-outs-reddit-for-censorship-during-gamergate/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/ . Are these unrealiable sources in your opinion? --Artman40 (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

YouTube and AttackOnGaming are, yes, obviously unreliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, if a site you considered an RS were to make the claims in the Youtube video, and cite the Youtube video as evidence, would that pass muster? If not, can you explain how the evidence for Anita Sarkeesian's harassment is any stronger than that? Or is Twitter @femfreq now considered an RS? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"Gamergate" is almost exclusively about harassment of several women in the gaming industry"-according to the narrative of one of the sides of the controversy, that is subject to crticism. While no doubt harassment was made on both sides, reliable sources note that the issues reach far beyond harassment, and even The Guardian which defended one of the sides, admitted that there are legitimate concerns raised during these events.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's correct, and we must present each side of the controversy even-handedly. We must present both claims: that it's about journalistic ethics on one side, and about harassment of women on the other. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"We must present both sides even-handedly", by allowing people to make unilateral statements on the talk page in favour of one side and refusing to consider inclusion of other POVs. Is this for real? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, GamerGate states that many of these "realiable" sources are in fact unreliable. In fact, many editors who write the articles about GamerGate being about harassment are in fact involved with this as well. --Artman40 (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources don't magically become unreliable simply because someone makes a claim of bias. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What about demonstrated conflicts of interest? Are we really going to accept that Kotaku is a RS on this issue when they have a clear vested interest in defending Grayson? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately for some, not all "sides" to a story are equal, or deserving of equal weight or time. Fringe or far-out criticisms, even when covered by reliable sources, do not always get equal time with the things that actually happened, e.g. Barack Obama contains precisely zero mentions of the fake birth certificate hysteria. This is why WP:UNDUE exists. Tarc (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly: as soon as one side starts using death threats, the press are likely going to ignore any qualified POV from that side. We can separate out very valid viewpoints that have been brought up by the gamer side: the transparency needed in the industry, how some devs push political agendas in games, but we're not ever likely to get a rationale, neutrally-written story that attempts to justify the need to harassment and issue death threats. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Exactly: as soon as one side starts using death threats"-death threats were made by members of both sides, however not all death threats were covered.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If the other death threats weren't covered in reliable sources, then they aren't part of our discussion. Verifiability is a core content policy.

In any event, the overwhelming majority perspective among reliable sources focuses on the threats and harassment against Quinn, Sarkeesian and other cultural critics and supporters. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I will search if death threats were reported. Hover, personal insults and harassment by the other side though were noted by reliable sources.Your claim is giving undue representation to one POV, which is not supported by reliable sources, even such as The Guardian which declared their support to one of the sides.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You have the undue weight policy exactly backward. We weight in-article representations of a point of view based on their prominence in reliable sources. By far, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources focus on the harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian as the touchstone of this issue. Thus, the NPOV policy requires us to give that viewpoint predominance.

The viewpoint you espouse is the minority viewpoint in reliable sources. Therefore, we must depict that as a minority viewpoint and not give it undue weight. Wikipedia does not have an "equal time" policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that only one side's death threats were reported, and thus used as an excuse to "ignore qualified POV", is exactly why the reliability of these sources on this subject is being called into question. You are engaging in circular reasoning here: you consider the existing sources reliable because you think they are free of bias; you think they are free of bias because you are unwilling to consider the evidence of bias; but you are unwilling to consider the evidence of bias because it's not from one of those reliable sources.

"Reliable sources" shouldn't be required in the context of making an argument about whether a given source is reliable. Otherwise, where is the bootstrap for that process? This is, after all, meta-discussion, not the main article. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion, not supported by sources. Reliable sources have addressed both sides, even one such as The Guardian. One of the most objective articles was from Al Jazeera which addressed both viewpoints equally. By now you have demonstrated obvious bias towards one of the sides of the controversy here. The article needs to represent NPOV.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, it's not a "personal opinion," it's verifiable from the thrust of the reliable sources, including this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one... I could go on. (And will: this one and this one and this one, too.)

Ah yes, the claim that "you have demonstrated obvious bias" by a user who has demonstrated obvious bias themselves. Quite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, cherry-picked, weak sources(Vice is considered RS? If so, I am dissapointed), and even they do not support you. I note that you ignored major reliable sources such as Al Jazeera, Forbes, Business Insider and others that do no support your POV. As to my POV-it is that we must present all viewpoints in neutral manner according to Wiki standards.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sure, The Globe and Mail, Time, Ars Technica, The Independent, the Los Angeles Times, Slate, etc. - cherry-picked and weak sources, all.

By the way, I'm happy to add the Forbes link, because it supports my argument quite well. Although Erik Kain is a "Forbes contributor," which means that his writing is not reviewed, he is not edited and it is essentially an opinion piece. See this discussion thread.. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, you have obviously not read the Business Insider piece - it is simply a syndicated version of The Guardian piece found here. Which says "A spiteful blogpost by the ex-lover of indie games developer Zoe Quinn, and the launch of the latest Tropes vs Women video by Sarkeesian, which analyses the sexist depiction of women in some games, have led to reams of appalling threats and abuse online" and mentions not a thing about alleged harassment of GamerGate supporters. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

When confronted with the reality of the overwhelming weight of the reliable sources, your only recourse is to somehow claim that they are all cherry-picked? OK then. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"When confronted with the reality of the overwhelming weight of the reliable sources"-such as Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Forbes, Slate, Business Insider? They do not support your claims. In fact, both The Guardian and Business Insider, actually mention legitimate criticism and issues with the gaming industry, even as they take one of the sides. I am sorry, but your heavy POV is not reflected in these sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

My willingness to assume good faith is growing thin. I literally just quoted from The Guardian piece you tout, in which the author depicts Quinn and Sarkeesian as the recipients of "reams of appalling threats and abuse online." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Slate article you tout says The entire situation is a dismal feedback loop of rage and abuse, where the harassment gets Quinn and her game more media coverage, and the harassers take that as evidence that they were right all along—something that’s already happened to Quinn several times over the past year. ... I know it’s unfair for me to ask this of you, young gamer. A fair number of people—not you!—are doing a lot worse than criticizing. Those adolescents (or arrested adolescents) are trolling Quinn, harassing and threatening her, hacking her accounts, even calling her home and circulating nude pictures of her. ... As gaming writer Jenn Frank says, “the TRUTH is, it turns out being a girl professionally, or on the Internet, etc., is VERY HARD.” Feminist video game critic Anita Sarkeesian, a popular target for harassment, is getting “very scary threats” against her family, and all she does is talk about video games. So yes, that source supports my argument. Thank you for acknowledging it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thing is, several companies have actually updated their ethics policies in response to this, which runs counter to the claims that this is all about misogyny. It clearly is not, and it is not universally perceived as being about such. It is a combination of a culture war (between the social justice folks and the hardcore gamers, as well as between the gamers and gaming journalists and developers who have denegrated them), online flame war (at this point there have been numerous death threats thrown around on both sides, doxxing, harassment, ect.), an argument about the ethics of gaming journalism, and several other things besides. The idea that it is all about misogyny is a point of view advanced by Zoe Quinn and her supporters, but there are numerous sources which note that it is not, and that the claims of such are, in fact, playing the victim. This is not to say that there has not been massive amounts of harassment, because there has been, clearly. But the idea that this is all about misogyny - or should be presented as such - is not supported by the RSs. Some of them claim it is; many claim otherwise. There are many people with many different agendas here. Our agenda here, on Wikipedia, should be to document; the AFD on this noted that as this is a current event, we should make sure to be careful about WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, WP:BIAS and try to do our best to cover the who, what, where, and when as much as possible, as opposed to trying to get too far into things. If we take a step back, take a deep breath, and document what is going on, we will be much better for it. That was what I was trying to do above, with the bit about the background and article layout; the background should be the EASIEST part to write because it isn't about recent events but about what has happened in the past. I suggest that writing about the start of this is easier than writing about what is going on at this very moment because we have more vision on what happened. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that this article should say "this is all about misogyny." What I am saying is that this article must reflect and give weight to the significant POV that it is all about misogyny. Wikipedia is not going to decide whether it's about journalistic ethics or misogyny, and we don't care what you or anyone else thinks it "clearly" is or is not.

We must accurately describe each of the competing claims about this controversy, giving due weight to those that are most prevalent in reliable sources. This is, as I have noted, precisely what the NPOV policy requires. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

As I have repeatedly noted, a prevalent viewpoint in the reliable sources is that the movement's statements that it is centered on journalistic ethics are belied by, or at the very least drowned out by, the overwhelming torrent of misogynistic abuse, harassment and slut-shaming aimed at Zoe Quinn and others.

• As Vox's Todd VanDerWerff put it, "The #GamerGaters have some actually interesting concerns, largely driven by the changing face of video game culture. But those concerns have often been warped and drowned out by an army of trolls spewing bile, often at women." He quotes The Guardian's gaming editor Keith Stuart as saying, "Whatever the higher motivations of some of those involved, the debate has had such a toxic undercurrent of abuse and anti-feminism that it has poisoned the whole concept."
• On TownHall.com, a relatively sympathetic piece by Kevin Glass notes that "The angry, hyperbolic, sometimes dangerous reaction of the gaming consumption community is troubling. Anecdotally, it takes only five minutes in a first-person shooter online lobby to understand why. The gamers involved seem to be in perpetual competition to see who can hurl the most vile insults at each other. It’s not an environment I’d want to expose my mother, wife, or daughter to. One might say that if a woman can’t handle that kind of environment, they should voluntarily stay away; but that’s precisely the point. A certain segment of the gaming community endeavors to make women feel as unwelcome as possible. And certainly, we can all agree that posting private information and photos, combined with violent threats, is out of bounds. This is something that all gamers should band together to condemn more strenuously than the minor crime of biased journalism."
• In The Globe and Mail, Emma Woolley writes, "Even if the allegations against Ms. Quinn were true, it is hard to justify the extreme levels of rage being spewed online, which apparently includes continuing harassment of her and her friends. ... As Ms. Quinn herself acknowledged, what this actually about is the entitlement and disdain shown to game creators, and some longtime gamers feeling threatened by more people moving into what they consider their space. Frustration that had been building amongst them–annoyed by the rise in discussions centered on gender, race and diversity in video games–has now burst forth. This group is so incensed that they’re using petty gossip about someone’s personal life to fuel a movement aimed at “taking back” video games from evil feminists who dare to make/support non-traditional games, or criticize AAA titles, under the guise of “integrity.” ... Gaming’s most pervasive issue isn’t corruption, but the people who’ve taken ownership of something that isn’t solely theirs to begin with. In trying their damnedest to limit the appeal of the medium and use online harassment to achieve their goals, this group of toxic trolls are proving themselves to be gaming’s biggest problem."
• In the Los Angeles Times, Todd Martens says "The exact incident, in which the spurned ex of a female independent game designer reportedly published embarrassing personal details of their relationship and accused her of infidelity, is now beside the point. That moment has become an excuse, an opportunity to rail against designers and writers who are attempting to intellectualize the medium — “social justice warriors,” as they’ve been labeled by their online assailants. These “social justice warriors” are seen as capable of destroying the very essence of what some players love about video games: violence, fantasy and scantily clad women. Far from making a point, the ugly reaction has instead exposed the rage and rampant misogyny that lies beneath the surface of an industry that’s still struggling to mature."

I could quote from each and every one of them if you'd like. The point is, their POV is significant and appears to be the predominant POV in reliable sources. Our policy requires that we give that prominence due weight in this article. The fact that you disagree with their POV, believe their POV is a "conflict of interest" or believe them to be "playing the victim" is utterly irrelevant, because none of those things have any bearing on Wikipedia's treatment of them as reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

So I made an account for this, but I honestly have to say something. This whole controversy has been normal folks vs the media. There is going to be an incredible amount of sources for the media BECAUSE they try to discredit GamerGate. This whole article misrepresents what this movement is fighting for (Which is journalist ethics, look at the gamergate hashtag on twitter). I honestly believe if this article can only focus on one side because of the controversy being against the media, it shouldn't even exist. If it continues to exist, it is not an encyclopedia article, but an opinion piece. There was an actual tweet a few days after this started where someone said, "Oh, I didn't know they were calling for radio silence" to try to make it go away. This has been what we have been fighting against, and you are being incredibly unjust to this topic. I don't know all of the Wikipedia articles or anything, but this is from an outsiders and frequent users point of view, and also the view of people who are on the side of gamer gate fighting for this. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

So GamerGate has nothing to do with Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian then? It's just normal people vs the media, because the media are not normal folks obviously? If you can point out to me the "movement" and its headquarters, leaders, manifesto and / or objectives I would be much happier about it existing as an article rather than the headline of an online flame war between four factions of interrelated groups pretending to all be on a higher horse than the next. Koncorde (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"Normal folks" as in those who do not report news stories. #fiveguysburgersandfries was about Zoe. #GamerGate started when Adam Baldwin tweeted it and people rallied under it to fight against corruption and the current level of journalist ethics. There has been absoutely no leaders because of it being gamers v gaming media. Normal gamers are looking for constant proof of corruption and have found it, but many outlets wont cover it. Journalist funding Quinn, [refactored due to BLP concerns], and a media outlet change their ethics policy because of it Escapist. knowyourmeme is a better article right now than Wikipedia. All of those things have been uncovered and pushed for under #gamergate, but no one will report on it because RPS/Kotaku/Gamasutra/etc. are all pushing against us. There have been no leaders, but the major players who brought light to things were Totalbiscuit, mundanematt (Who Zoe flagged for a DMCA on his video explaining everything, but it was reinstated by Youtube as a false claim), the Internet Aristocrat, and Adam Baldwin, who started #GamerGate. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

First, part of the problem is that this article locked down with full protection, so we can't make changes (Technically I as admin could but barring outright BLP issues, shouldn't be touching it as involved). Second , I do this we can tag Totalbiscuit's piece, but this is understand that he was against the use of the DMCA to quench criticism having been in the same position some months back when his own review was put down. Adam Baldwin is mentioned but beyond throwing his name into the debate, there's not much we can say. What we have to realize is that most of what is on the GamerGame side are, for all purposes, random Internet users, speaking with a common voice. It is going to be very hard to find a source that digs much onto that. What we can do to prevent excessive bias is to make sure that covering the sources that do favor the anti-GG side are not used in excess. This is partially why I would want to have this article cover the overall larger issue of gamers vs game dev/journals that has persisted for a few years now, so that GG is a part, but only a part, of that, and thus balancing ou the article further and diminishing the need to fully document GG to a point that we really can't --MASEM (t) 00:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You are entirely correct, and that is the best way to explain it. This is a common voice vs the media. The reason I bring up Adam Baldwin is that he started #gamergate with this tweet. It seems you have to have news sources though, and most news sources that I read attribute gamergate to 4chan, as well as #notyourshield, which rose out of it. The article, right now, is so horribly biased because the only news outside sources are going to have (or their main news), is the news that the games media, who the common voice is fighting against, are writing. This is not right, and it skews the side of the story, since wikipedia needs 'reliable sources' to write something. I agree with expanding the article though, since it would be relevant then. Other than that I would rather see it deleted, since there are obvious things causing the side of GG to not be reported on. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

However, we do have sources that are trying to present the other side , after pulling the more legitimate voices from the mess. They (these sources) have pointed out that the GG want transparency in the media, they don't like games being made that push certain agendas, etc. Those are all fair points (you may or may not agree with them) that can be included to balance out the picture. That's all stuff tied in with expanding the article beyond the present GG events. --MASEM (t) 00:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well... then my grievances are being worked on already. It is just really irking to come in here and constantly see, "We don't have to give insight into one side of the debate if the 'reliable sources' show a heavy lean to the other side' kinda stuff. The movement, that so many people have worked on and are trying to push (GG for journalistic integrity, etc.), has been constantly slandered and insulted (as well as compared to ISIS... I am not even kidding), and it is worrisome that there is a chance our push is going to be shadowed by those we are fighting against. So thank you for actually replying to my concerns, and for others that are worried also. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen this mentioned in talk yet but Brietbart produced three articles 1, 2, 3 over the course of the event (so far). One of which seems to support the theory of GamerGate being about ethics in gaming journalism as opposed to harassment. I however know very little about them so I am unsure on how reliable they are, thoughts? -- CrypticChronos (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart has been discussed on this page and it is in no way a reliable source. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you please give any kind of explanation as to how Breitbart isn't a reliable source? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

A brief look at our handy article about Breitbart.com should explain it — the site has a long and indisputable history of publishing fabrications, hoaxes, outright lies, etc. It is not a reliable news organization. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The same can be said to sites which focus only on "harassment". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.108.144 (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Ahh I see it now, (Bit embarrassed I missed it so much text on this page) -- CrypticChronos (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Trying to work out what the larger scope is that leads up to GG

I'm trying to figure out what the right approach for this article as, right now, it seems that there was nothing there until the ex's allegations on Quinn. But this has been a situation brewing for some time.

The Guardian article justifies that we're at this point due to two facets: the rise of the indie game market (which allows for titles that would include those that include "messages"), and the increase of the use of social media that makes anyone a possible game critic.

The Guardian article also points out that gamers have been critical of game journalism for some time; one example give is the Doritos-gate thing (back in 2012 [21]) but possibly even goes at least as far back as Jeff Gerstmann's departure from Gamespot after the questionable Kane & Lynch review in 2007 ([22]).

Another facet here is that events since last year have been cases of gamers harassing developers (the COD game balancing stuff), and the involvement of the IDGA and now the FBI to try to stem that. We also have the fact that when Quinn released Depression Quest last year she was also harassed.

If we can describe all these events, and then start a section on the actual part of "GamerGate" to say that it is considered the flashpoint of all these things brewing, that would help set the stage better for the reader and make it clear this isn't something that just happened for no reason. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There is also the clearly-articulated argument in a number of reliable sources that the entire thing amounts to a harassment campaign, and we would violate NPOV by failing to note it alongside the "gamer" argument. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, again, Quinn's harassment from last year should be included, and some of the other mid-2013 events were considered harassment too (in fact, that is why IDGA got involved). --MASEM (t) 19:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree re: background. That was what I was trying to note above - this whole thing was a flashpoint. People talk about this as if it "started", but really, it has been brewing for years - some would say decades. John Romero's ad years ago for Daikatana really is an example of the same sort of disrespect for gamers, and is frequently cited as such. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Another facet here is that events since last year have been cases of gamers harassing developers, please note that the harassment is not one sided, one of the reliable sources here, notes that people criticizing game journalists and developers have been harassed as well. One angle that doesn't seem to be covered so far is Silverstring Media.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I do feel that the FYC /Quinn thing needs to be included too, in part that this shows what you said, this is not a one sided "attack" on the other, and we can certainly source that (the Vox article and carefully with this Vice articles). And same with Phil Fish, as he has had very heated words in the past before these events (as I recall, stuff that lead to the cancellation of Fez 2) --MASEM (t) 20:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but condemning harassers for their behavior is not in itself harassment. This is just like the Quinn article last week, where people are digging up bad and biased opinion pieces in order to mitigate the treatment that Quinn and others were subject to. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Sorry, but condemning harassers for their behavior is not in itself harassment."There were death threats to the other side and personal insults as well. Far from just "condemning".--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

By your logic, Tarc, Zoe Quinn would not be the subject of harassment herself, seeing as she has harassed others. The Zoe Quinn's supporters doxxed, hacked, threatened, and sent out death threats to people. Heck, they doxxed Wikipedia users for editing this Wikipedia article and the one on Zoe Quinn. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not reporting significant counter-harassment, and indeed are focusing almost exclusively on the harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Reliable sources are not reporting significant counter-harassment, and indeed are focusing almost exclusively on the harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian" this is incorrect.I have read numerous reliable sources that reported on harassment from both sides, and none of the reliable sources focus exclusively about these two figures you focus on. In fact a large portion of the debate is completely bypassing these two figures, and attempts to divert it to them have been criticized by critics of gaming journalism and industry as attempts to turn around the discussion about non-issue(this was covered by RS as well).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've linked to a number of reliable sources which reported significant counter-harassment; the What Culture? piece noted the death threats leveled at the Brietbart writer, for instance, while Business Insider has noted both the signature gathering campaign about harassment by game devs (which had more than the one that the game devs were signing - in fact, I believe we even cite that article in the article, or did at one point). There have been numerous articles which have noted harassment by these folks. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you TD, so it seems death threats are confirmed by reliable sources. As such they should be covered in appropriate section.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. There may be a few mentions of alleged counter-harassment, but they are neither as credible nor as widespread as the discussion of harassment of Quinn, Sarkeesian and others. Ergo, we weight the discussion of their harassment far more heavily than we weight any alleged counter-harassment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

" but they are neither as credible nor as widespread " That is your view, that doesn't seem to be supported by RS. Note that you use alleged when talking about the other side, but take others at face value when it comes to the another. This indicates bias. We should describe both sides neutrally.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

And you're wrong. Because this is a list of reliable sources which support my view: this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one... I could go on. (And will: this one and this one and this one, too.) And you have no rebuttal except to sputter that I have somehow "cherry-picked" every reliable source on the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"And you're wrong." That's hardly an argument." Because this is a list of reliable sources which support my view"-again, under close scrutiny these sources do not support your view, especially The Guardian, Slate(which actually goes against your argument) or the Business Insider. You have also omitted major reliable sources like Al Jazeera, which completely contradict your claims. As to others, Vice seems like a weak source and I wouldn't consider it reliable source. I am sorry, but you have contradicted yourself with many of these links.

"And you have no rebuttal except to sputter", personal insults don't add to the credibility of your argument. I suggest that you keep your arguments civil--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention several of those are unusuable; The Guardian piece is not usable; conflict of interest. The Independent article is a blog (voices is their blog/opinion section from my understanding). The time article was written by Leigh Alexander, who as I noted previously has a clear conflict of interest in the matter as well, as she is employed by one of the people who is targeted by the accusations of corruption (and indeed, is involved in both gaming journalism AND promotion of games for pay, which is itself a conflict of interest). The Motherboard article is an attack piece and not a reliable source. Business Insider makes note of the harassment of gamers by journalists and game developers. That's just off the top of my head. It is easy to list off hundreds of blogs and unreliable sources and attack pieces. It is much harder to list off good, reliable sources which aren't such. That's one of the major challenges the article faces. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no "conflict of interest" in The Guardian or Time pieces, and they are perfectly usable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You have been arguing by assertion throughout. A very clear conflict of interest was just shown to you, and your response was flat denial. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

How are those not conflicts of interest? One of them directly financially supported Zoe Quinn; the other one works for at least one of the places which has been the target of criticism and is writing in defense of actions she herself has been involved in. I'm referring to the first article from The Guardian; the second one is totally fine. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't work that way, I'm afraid. The Guardian is a reliable source, period. Tarc (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't understand the RS policy; a source is never "reliable, period." You need to read WP:SOURCE and WP:QS. The Guardian may be reliable in most instances, but that does not mean that they are always a reliable source. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And you don't understand that your unsourced and unsupported assertion of 3-level convoluted Glenn Beck-chalkboard-esque "conflicts of interest" are not sufficient to render a source unreliable. If a reliable source has made a claim that there is a conflict of interest, we should report that claim. But simply working for someone who is targeted by an accusation does not make someone "biased" - otherwise literally all it would take to render any source unusably "biased" is for someone, anyone to make an accusation against them. Presto, that source now has a conflict of interest because I accused it of a conflict of interest? Circular logic must fail. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"3-level convoluted Glenn Beck-chalkboard-esque"? Seriously? That's incredibly uncivil of you, and demonstrates massive biased POV on your part. There is nothing convoluted nor circular about the reasoning that a person who's part of a group that stands accused of corruption has a conflict of interest when writing an article denying that accusation and trying to pass it off as impartial. It's crystal-clear. Leigh's piece in Time isn't presented as a defense against accusations of corruption in the court of public opinion; it's presented as yet another attack on gamers and the same sort of dismissal that you've been making throughout all of this. She uses scare quotes liberally to deny the sincerity of Gamergate posters, meanwhile making no mention of how she's implicated in the accusations. Yet she writes as if she has a NPOV that she simply doesn't. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

And this continued argument is again why I ask what GamerGate is, then we can begin to decipher what is actually relevant. Koncorde (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I want to keep out of the tire fire that is the back-and-forth on the article, but I humbly suggest the following source at DigiTimes. It is from a reputable Taiwanese newspaper. It is speaking in the context of how the situation may affect technology sales, so the viewpoint is practical rather than pushing a particular agenda. The summary of events under the first few headings is compact. It also sticks to nice neutral "argued that" and "as some saw it" phrasing, particularly for the GG side's assertions, that should be palatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToukaMiya (talk • contribs) 15:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Like most of the other sources, it's an opinion column. Useful, but to be used with caution. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

One major advantage that the source has is that it is from a very different source from most of the other sources (being both from another country and from a very different point of view, as the concern of the article is completely different from pretty much all the other articles). It is always good to have more points of view in order to combat systematic bias. But, as noted, it is a commentary piece, which means it should be used cautiously. Still, a lot of it seems potentially useful. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate disambiguation page?

If this survives AfD, should we create a disambiguation page for this, seeing as the only difference between this and gamergate is a capital letter? Upjav (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we'd likely need to move this, as per proper WP casing, it should be "Gamergate" and that conflicts with the scientific term (Which has priority for naming here), and so likely be at "Gamergate (video game controversy)". --MASEM (t) 03:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense - that's what I figured would be how we'd distinguish it. Upjav (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Add protection template

Please add a template to notify the protection status. I didn't notice it was protected until someone pointed it out at the deletion discussion. Diego (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Diego (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Incredibly biased.

Wikipedia editors really ought to be ashamed of themselves at how biased this article is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.17.153 (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see several above sections: we're aware that we need to rework this article but as it is under full protection, it cannot be updated at this time. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

1. why is it under full protection? 2. who makes these decisions? 3. will it be unprotected at some future point? If so, when? 14.200.20.112 (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It was quickly attracting people with negative comments that are against BLP; it will be automatically unprotected on the 14th, but that doesn't mean that it will be re-protected if the situation beyond WP towards this hasn't changed. It was blocked by Cuchullian initially due to anonymous IP edit warring on both this and on Quinn's article, and then that admin increased it to full protection as registered editors began engaging in the same. --MASEM (t) 16:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Because editors were warring over edits.
2. Administrators.
3. Protection expires 17:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC).

Tarc (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is probably a case where they should have just blocked the users who were engaging in the edit warring, especially given their history of such. But anyway, if you're interested, feel free to join in on the discussion! We're working on improving the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Doritogate

if there a article on this controversy why is there not one regarding the Doritogate controversy from 2012? Doritogate was was also a video game controversy regarding the gaming press.78.137.5.26 (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to start one at WP:AFC. Gamaliel (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is why these should be treated within one of the primary articles such as Video game journalism or Video game culture and not stand alone stubs.

I am pushing to include Doritogate as part of the issues leading to this in a larger article, a sign of the overall chasm between gamers and game journalism. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be part of the background section, I agree. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 September 2014 (uncontroversial)

Please can some admin go to [23] and redo the refs. The article relies too much on bare links. KonveyorBelt 22:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no rush to fix barelinks at this stage before we've hashed out the rest. Yes, it would be nice to format them better but that is so far down the priority level as long as WP:V is otherwise met. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In which case, Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Further mainstream coverage.

Several days on GamerGate is receiving widening mainstream media coverage, including from the business press.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140906VL200.html

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/zoe-quinns-depression-quest

Furthermore the full chat log from the IRC channel #burgersandfries has been released and partially analyzed (inasmuch as it's 3,756 pages, in 10-point type, of chaotic overlapping IRC conversations).

http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/09/08/zoe-quinns-screenshots-of-4chans-dirty-tricks-were-just-the-appetizer-heres-the-first-course-of-the-dinner-directly-from-the-irc-log/

http://puu.sh/boAEC/f072f259b6.txt

These citations should be folded into the article as appropriate. Thank you. kencf0618 (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

At first glance, I don't think WeHuntedTheMammoth meets WP:RS guidelines. The New Yorker article sure does, though. Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The first article raises concerns about the wider impact this may have on the gaming industry as it enters the holiday season. That may be noteworthy. As for WeHuntedTheMammoth, I agree that it shouldn't be used as a source, but Ars Technica has referenced it and the logs themselves in this article: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/new-chat-logs-show-how-4chan-users-pushed-gamergate-into-the-national-spotlight/ Willhesucceed (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

For Ars Technica to reference We Hunted The Mammoth is... impressive. WHTM is a self-published blog by an individual with a clear axe to grind, and it's not even in Alexa's top 100,000. They might as well be citing a post on Tumblr or FreeThoughtBlogs. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Definitely tag the Ars Tech for a very useful source. Let's just make sure we don't add our own opinions on that. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

While this is not necessarily 'coverage' of the GamerGate issue The Escapist posted revised Journalistic Guidelines in wake of articles that they produced during this whole event it can be found here http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/12223-The-Escapist-Publisher-Issues-Public-Statement-on-Gamergate.5 I know it's an editorial piece so it may not be considered factual but we may want to include it in the page as a consequence of the event. CrypticChronos (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Editorial pieces can be used for documenting reactions and similar things, so it is still potentially useful for THAT, at least. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Another piece (albeit slighty biased, but hits the historical points fairly) from Salon. --MASEM (t) 06:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this is one of the best, most even-handed accountings of the issue that I've read so far. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"Even-handed"? Are you serious? The article barely even mentions the existence of the gamergate cause, and doesn't even scratch the surface of the list of grievances. There's nothing about the history of discontent with gaming press (even Doritogate, mentioned elsewhere on the Talk page, wasn't the start of it, not by a long shot). Even the article title shows a clear bias, "quoting" an exclusionary message that wasn't said or even implied by anyone. People presenting the argument that Sarkeesian is effectively "trolling" gamers, are painted as sexist. It's flat out a hit piece. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Another article from the Telegraph: [24] , particularly good here that it helps thread the needle on why Quinn is being verbally criticized as well as identifying the problem of how the changing nature of video game audiences might be part of the larger picture. (again, it's got a bit of a bias, but tries to present a rationale for the other side) --MASEM (t) 17:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, again, I think this is an excellent source. We're starting to get better sources that are actually analyzing the issue and talking to identifiable people involved in the matter, rather than just stating opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Another reliably-sourced article, from Marketplace: [25]. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Opinionated, but reliable: Flavorwire and RH Reality Check. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Flavorwire looks to me like the internet equivalent of a tabloid; I don't see why it would be considered an RS. RH Reality Check is "Reproductive & Sexual Health and Justice News, Analysis and Commentary"; anything they have to say about other social issues is well beyond their purview, so I again don't see why it would be reliable. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent follow-up pieces all. Thanks, everyone! kencf0618 (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The Asian Age weighs in, stating "That video games are sexist and their view of women objectionable isn’t news, but the response to Anita’s work has showed just how extreme opinions are pertaining to it."

The Telegraph posts another article, stating "Evil women are coming to take away your computer games. At least, that’s the message that a group of angry young men have been articulating on the internet in the past few weeks. According to them, these games – once a haven for socially awkward teenage boys – are being ruined by the monstrous regiment. Their livid arguments and the vitriolic online abuse, all gathered on the internet under the hashtag “gamergate”, is another example of the way in which women are targeted on the internet."

Writing for Forbes, Paul Tassi discusses the inherent issues with asking for "objective" gaming media.

Opinionated take in The Auburn Citizen. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Another excellent reliable source, The Washington Post weighs in. Sexism in gaming is a long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable problem. It’s also the crux of the industry’s biggest ongoing battle being waged on Twitter under the hashtag “#GamerGate.” NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Another source: The Guardian interviews Zoe Quinn. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Le Monde has now reported on this: link. How do we handle non-English sources? Willhesucceed (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• We can use foreign sources no problem, reference-wise we just source them withe the |lang= tag in the cite template. If we do want to actually quote them, or if we need to use a carefully worded statement from that that we'd add a |Quote= in the cite template, we may want to have someone with proficiency in French to provide the proper translation, but otherwise we can use something like Google Translate to get a broad picture. I've looked through it and there's probably a few choice quotes for the pro-GG side, and as such it might be worthwhile to find a translator to do the whole thing for us. (I forget if WP does have a volunteer group for that). --MASEM (t) 21:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• • This is the first non-English coverage I've seen. I also note that the article hasn't appeared in any other Wikis to date, even as a stub. kencf0618 (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed per BLP

This sentence needs a reliable citation or it will be removed per WP:BLP: "Some of the information alleged a level of impropriety in her relationship with a video game journalist from Kotaku." Kaldari (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The Kotaku source that follows presently ref 8, (in which its editor spoke out to clear the air) has the specific information that should be used for that. --MASEM (t) 23:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I also put in [26] which specifically talks about the release of info by the ex. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm still a bit concerned about the wording here. According to our wording, the information itself alleged the impropriety. The New Yorker article only says that the information exposed their relationship. It's entirely possible they had a relationship without any impropriety. We should probably change the wording to say that the ex-boyfriend alleged the impropriety (or that twitter users alleged it, or whoever). Kaldari (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There is definitely a narrative gap, as at some point the statements towards Quinn went from one person (her ex) to many. As such, I do not believe we can actually state the ex made the impropriety claim. (I have no , nor ever plan to, read or look for the ex's statements) --MASEM (t) 00:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, wait here we go [27] " One of his most contentious (and unproven) accusations: that she slept with a gaming journalist at Kotaku who helped secure favorable coverage and publicity for her game Depression Quest." Will add and touch wording --MASEM (t) 00:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Good find. What do you think about changing "Some of his information alleged..." to "Some of his post alleged..." or simply "He alleged"? Kaldari (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me fix , but want to be clear there was more than just the impropriety allegations in his message (based on the NYorker source) --MASEM (t) 01:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, her ex said that she slept with the journalist, but didn't say that it was in return for favorable coverage. (At least not in the post that this is referring to). That was a separate interpretation made by other people. - Bilby (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I feel like those two sentences were very weaselly. The ex accused her of cheating on him with video game journalists and developers. The gamers were the ones who alleged professional impropriety; the ex's post was purely about personal impropriety. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I added the word "personal" to the bf's claims. it was the larger crowd that made the claims of professinal impropriety, but I don't think we need to state that; the statement from Kotaku should be clear that it was to clear up the professional side. As we want to stay out of the weeds of all the accusations, I don't think we need to explicitly state that others accused her of professional improprietary (that's a statement ripe for BLP issues) , as long as we talk about what Kotaku said immediately followed by the larger picture as is done now. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can write the article without noting the accusations being thrown around by the various folks involved, given that the claims of corruption and the claims of her detractors being misogynists (which is presently in the article) are both pretty central to the whole thing. Neither are very nice, and both need to be treated very carefully, but as long as we make it clear that these are accusations being thrown around by involved parties and not fact, we should be okay, I think. The nature of the original allegations is, honestly, pretty weaselly here as well; we shouldn't soften what it was. A big part of the reason why the social justice folks see this as misogyny is because the original post by her ex was reporting on her infidelity, which they perceived as slut shaming. I think understanding that context is important to understanding what happened. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Talking about the bf's claims about personal impropriety, and then immediately following that up with a disclaimer from Mr. Totilo of professional impropriety, without introducing the source of any allegations of professional impropriety first, seems to me like confusing at best and a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the bf's claims at worst. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Focus of lead

It seems that most of the mainstream media coverage that has come out in the last day or so has focused more on the harassment campaigns than the alleged improprieties. The lead should be updated to reflect this as it currently doesn't mention this at all. Kaldari (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It does need to be better summarized, but I think that will come with the revamping of the article once unlocked. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

We need to avoid WP:RECENTISM, as people have (repeatedly) noted. We've seen changing press coverage day by day (and it isn't all about the harassment campaigns; I've seen a number of articles today which were about the whole "gaming journalism is corrupt" thing), we are not supposed to breathlessly change articles every single day because of whatever is coming out that day, otherwise we'd have major article instability. We should, again, as others have noted, try to keep taking a step back and the long view of things. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We should not try and guess. We need to document the chain of events, so that all of this chaos makes perfect sense. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

uhhhh, its not old enough for "recentism" to apply!!! its an astroturf campaign to generate harassment. what does apply is that the first coverage, as in most "breaking news", was wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The topic is far more than just the harassment aspect. This has been an event long brewing and just needed something to spark it. --MASEM (t) 05:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The tenor of the discussion has clearly changed in a matter of days, sharply and repeatedly, over the last 4 weeks. For an internet drama of this sort, that is absolutely "old enough for recentism to apply". Also, I wish you would stop repeating this ridiculous "astroturfing" assertion that has no basis in reality. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

How To Astroturf A Controversial Article Despite Numerous Objections

0. have admin rights. 1. get in fast, write the original article. 2. lock it down. demand that any changes should require consensus. 3. bog down everything in procedural details. 4. enjoy your opinion piece masquerading as wiki article for weeks 5. lazy journalists use it as a primary source (no attribution), and now you can cite them.

I am not making any accusations. I am not saying that's what happened here. But this is a pattern I very much do not want to see happen. It's a bug.

Proposal: until we have consensus, trim the article down to a 5-line stub stating the basic facts. We can have a proper article when it blows over. 14.200.20.112 (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Really I think the big thing which sticks out to me right now is Leigh Alexander (conflict of interest, as she writes for one of the accused parties) and the bit about 4Chan with Zoe at the end. It has some other issues, but I think that the latter is probably given undue weight at the moment given the brevity of the article and the former is, well, not actually a RS in this case. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed stub article:

GamerGate refers to a 2014 video game culture controversy[1] centered on the ethics of video game journalism, especially accusations of use of personal relationships to obtain favourable reviews and awards in gaming industry,[2] and a debate over the increasing number of cultural critiques of video games from feminist and other perspectives.[3][4][5][6]

<Background>

In August 2014 personal, private and sensitive information of the video game developer Zoe Quinn was posted to the internet by an ex-boyfriend.[7] His information included allegations regarding a level of impropriety in her relationship with a video game journalist from Kotaku.[8][9][10] Kotaku editor-in-chief Stephen Totillo stated that the writer had not written anything about Quinn after beginning the relationship and had never reviewed her games.[10]

The incident led to broader allegations on social media that games developers and gaming media are too often closely connected and that cultural criticism of video games has led to an increasing focus on social representation and cultural meaning in games by some video games writers.

Basically, the first few lines from the current article, up until it becomes a matter of opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.20.112 (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The "ethics" angle is a poorly-constructed sideshow by internet trolls to deflect from the real harassment that Ms. Quinn and others have been on the receiving end of. That is the only real direction that this article can go. Tarc (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

While it might be a sideshow, it is a valid discussion point; the way I think we need to treat this, specifically in handling the GG side, is to note that not everyone from that side is involved in the harassment, just the most vocal, and that the rest do have these opinions about the changing face of gaming. It would be wrong for us without any source to back it up to assume that the ethics aspects were created to deflect the real issue, and we do have to report on the #notyourshield side of this to keep it balanced. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how Wikipedia works to much, but Tarc, I think there might be good reason for you to not participate in the GamerGate topic. You continuously slander people who are on the side of GG and provide your point of view, multiple times, as complete fact. You seem to be incredibly invested in one side of this and are doing your hardest to try to make this about harassment, which GamerGate participants have actively tried to fight against. This is the reason why I continue to say deleting this will be best, because of the Media v Common voice aspect, where sources will heavily be slandering gamergate, and because you will continuously have people trying to actively slander the people from GamerGate. PseudoSomething (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, the reliable sources don't agree with you that "GamerGate participants have actively tried to fight against" the harassment. Indeed, the reliable sources state that misogynistic harassment has been a central part of the controversy. If you don't like the fact that we base our articles on reliable sources, then you just fundamentally misunderstand what Wikipedia is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I have addressed that before, and it was a reply to you. How do you base an article off of something that was made to be AGAINST the media? How do you represent what it actually was and what its goals were to do? Honest question. Do you be intellectually dishonest and say that the side that isn't able to give 'reliable sources' is just going to get slandered? I thought wikipedia was for actual information. Currently this article is going back to the days of school where Wikipedia was outright banned because of misinformation. You know in that IRC chat that people keep bringing up, that many chatters in there were telling the guys who wanted to see harm from Zoe to shut up? You know there is a new hashtag, well a small one since its working, of #literallywho, which is us trying to push back against what the anti-GG'ers are trying to push on the GG people? Honestly, it is so apparent about the amount of bias being pushed in this article, and it is sickening. PseudoSomething (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an alternative media platform. We publish what is verifiable in reliable sources. This concept is fundamental to the very idea of Wikipedia. We aren't about anyone "pushing back" against anything. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, well then why are these articles that are pointing and saying that GamerGate are being allowed? They aren't verifiable. They may be from a reliable source, but from just a little bit of digging, you can see that the movement is currently trying to pull away from that, since it isn't about it, but these things keep getting pushed on GG. So why are they still allowed? I can see now that if Reliability and Verifiability are pushed on articles, then the article could be written from a moderate position, since many of the 'facts' that the anti-GG people push are not verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PseudoSomething (talk • contribs) 18:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Again: the thing to do right now is to put up a tiny, neutral article containing just the bare basics, wait until the dust settles fully, somebody reputable does a real writeup. Every additional page view is reputation damage to Wikipedia, at this point. 14.200.20.112 (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

We are trying (and have) found articles that attempt to strip away the harassment stuff to get to the core of what the GG side is trying to bring forth (transparency, etc.) so that when we can re-edit this article we can provide a fair view of that side. We are very much aware of concerns both on WP and off that this can easily be twisted against the GG side, and that will be as much avoided as we can when we rework this. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct; there are people who state that GamerGate is about these other things; there are many other people who state that GamerGate is about misogynistic harassment. We will present both POVs in this article in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I thank both of yall for yall's responses, and it is nice to know that it wont be twisted. But honestly, don't you see a problem here with basing this, "present both POVs in this article in proportion to their prominence in reliable ", off of a controversy that is against the media? Isn't there some protocol for this or something, because it would easily tend to skew one way when the reliable sources have control over what they want to label their opposition. PseudoSomething (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I would correct NbSB there - because clearly the weight of RSes here is on the anti-GG side; we will try to balance out the coverage as best as possible, with the understanding that the media does have a weight against the questionable acts that the GG side has reportedly done (eg the death threats) but without also trying to make sure those that have been targets aren't put on pedestals either. The case is less about the specifics of who did what but the conflicting philosophies at work, and that's what we need to try to find a balance for. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, well once again you have covered all the bases that I was bringing up, Masem, thank you. I will see if I can dig up any reliable sources myself that can be used for the article. Are there any places to see what exactly constitutes 'Reliable'? PseudoSomething (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Masem, I would note that Wikipedia's NPOV policy does not call for "balance" but for placing due weight on each POV in proportion to its prominence in reliable sources. If there is an argument that the reliable sources themselves are biased, that is an interesting argument and should be presented, but as Gamaliel notes, we're not here to right great wrongs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I mean, in the sense that we have sources that I would consider slightly biased towards one side (typically, against GG) but have done a considerable effort to explain the situation before they add their opinion on it. We can use those reasonably balanced sources to build the article. What is clear is that we should not be considering the viewpoints held by GG as WP:FRINGE, and we have sources that can give their views as reasonable amount of coverage of the other side. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point, but Wikipedia does not and cannot set out to correct the mistakes of the world. If the reliable sources are wrong or biased, it is up to other reliable sources to deal with the issue. Gamaliel (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I know what you mean, and I wouldn't want Wikipedia to have to try to correct everything, but I would hope that, since this is such a weird situation (The 'Reliable sources' are one of the sides), it would at least have some extra consideration on how the article is wrote. I am not talking about taking GG's side, but I am talking about a moderate position that informs what the role of GG was to gamers, and what the press reported. Like I told Masem though, I will see if I can dig up some reliable sources, I just don't know what fully constitutes 'Reliable'. PseudoSomething (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a mistake to view the media as a monolith. There are many reliable sources with many different viewpoints. If some of the RSes are on one "side", surely there are some on the other. If not, that is generally an indication that either the issue is not significant enough to document in Wikipedia because collectively RSes do not deem it worthy of covering all sides, or because the side in question is a fringe viewpoint that Wikipedia should not consider. Gamaliel (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, well I will see if I can find anything that can provide the view from the other side, I am sure some of the independent outlets (Like woodroar commented) should have some. Thank you Gamaliel. PseudoSomething (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS has everything you're looking for. As far as the whole media thing goes, there are reliable independent media outlets that present views outside the mainstream media, but it takes a certainly amount of persistence to stay afloat and gain a positive reputation. It's like indie video games: how many indie devs are able to maintain their success year after year? Sadly, not many. Woodroar (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I will read over that for a bit and get familiar with it. Your right on your explanation of it though, that is a really relevant metaphor. PseudoSomething (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There are numerous RSs which state that the claims of misogyny are simply false, so claiming that the RSs don't include that point of view is simply false. I mean, an article from freaking Taiwan even talked about why the gamers were so enraged. It is our job to present a NPOV. I dunno why people continue to claim that there are no RSs on why gamers were upset when there are a large number of them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources discuss the issue of misogyny as central to this controversy. I have repeatedly listed them above and we can actually add a couple now (The Telegraph, The New Yorker, Marketplace, etc.) Please present your similar list of reliable sources which declare that this controversy has nothing to do with misogyny. Once again, note that the NPOV policy requires that we weight viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Al Jazeera, Forbes, Slate (which even notes how ill-researched some of these supposed reliable sources are, which, of course, means... they're not fact checked, and ergo, not reliable)... heck, Kotaku's own press release defending Grayson revealed that people were concerned about corruption. There are issues of systematic bias here; we're inherently reporting on a group who is complaining about being maligned by the media, using reports by the media. Many of the pieces are, as Slate notes, poorly researched. This is a problem. This is a problem both because it means that many of these supposedly "reliable sources" are not, in fact, reliable, and it is a problem because we're dealing with the gaming media reporting on itself. As the person here themselves noted, and as is noted over in RS, one problem is a lack of independent sources and lazy journalism - when you look at these things, how many of these folks are demonstrating that they have done their research, and are not merely reporting what other people are reporting? How many of them have attempted to look at the claims made by Zoe Quinn that it is all misogyny before repeating those claims? That's an issue. If a source claims that the whole thing is about misogyny, and other sources point out that that is wrong, and actually point out evidence that it is wrong, that is bad news for the source claiming it is all misogyny, because it implies that it may not be reliable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that the dozens of reliable sources which say it's about misogyny are wrong, therefore we should ignore them. Quite.

That's not how Wikipedia works, and I again suggest that you read the verifiability policy and the NPOV policy. What you think of a reliable source's opinion is not relevant and we don't make decisions like the one you're suggesting. When two or more reliable sources conflict, we don't take it upon ourselves to decide which is correct - rather, we report each of their points of view based upon their prevalence in reliable sources.

If the majority of reliable sources hold a particular point of view about a subject, that is the point of view which predominates in that subject's Wikipedia article. It does not matter if you think all those sources are wrong. That's not our judgment to make. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Further to the above, I'd just like to note that the recent coverage (e.g. the links to the Telegraph, New Yorker and Marketplace you posted above) is from the mainstream media, not from gaming media. Therefore concerns about bias in the gaming media shouldn't apply. If the claim is that all mainstream media sources are biased... well, that's starting to sound like a conspiracy theory. In any case, policies like WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE make clear that we have to base our articles on what the balance of the reliable mainstream sources say. If all (or almost all) the reliable sources are saying the same thing, it's not our job to argue with them and say something different. Robofish (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You're missing my point. My point is that many sources aren't reliable due to poor fact checking, and we also have to combat systemic bias (which is something that Wikipedia actually has an entire project devoted to). Also, the Telegraph article that you linked to doesn't support your point of view at all; it notes that Zoe Quinn claims all of these things... while the GamerGaters say otherwise, and point towards concerns with journalistic integrity. In fact, if you look at that article, it is reporting on what Zoe Quinn said, with some notes of what the other side said which contradicts what she claims. The person who wrote the article was interviewing Zoe Quinn primarily, but they fact checked it, and when they went outside of Zoe Quinn, the people she contacted said the exact opposite thing that Zoe Quinn said. That is how you're supposed to do things like this - you aren't just supposed to ask Zoe Quinn what she thinks. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Titanium, honest question, I am looking at the guy who wrote the New Yorker Article. It seems, before he made his Patreon private, he was funding Mattie Brice, who is fully against GamerGate. Would this still make the source reliable? PseudoSomething (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And now we've devolved to basically chasing rabbit holes, Glenn Beck chalkboard-style. It's not a compliment when your movement begins to sound like Alex Jones on a conspiracy-theory rant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It was an honest question, since it seems there is some conflict on interest in that article. Its not even chasing rabbit holes, that is pretty blatant. I am just wondering if it makes it un-reliable since he has ties to people already fighting against GG. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And here's an honest answer: giving money to another games journalist who expressed an opinion about something that you disagree with does not create unreliability or a conflict of interest. You're welcome. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

How does it not, though? That means they are supporting their ideals and their opinions, if not holding the same ones. There is a very big chance that if you are supporting someone like that, that you are going to write what is best for them, not for the news. I am not gonna keep pushing it since I don't know all the ways of WP, but that seems like a conflict on interest. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There seem to be a whole lot of people involved in this issue who don't seem to understand journalism. Every journalist has opinions and that does not disqualify them as journalists. Do you think sports journalists aren't often fans of the sports they cover? Do you think political journalists don't hold any political opinions? Do you think gaming journalists don't have opinions about the games they write about? Every review of a video game ever published is an opinion — it's a subjective statement of the writer's views of that particular game. I don't know what you honestly expect - do you think journalists just literally don't have opinions about anything? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, journalist can have opinions, they would be robots if not. They can like and not like games. The only thing is, the New Yorker article could of been written the way it did not to report the situation, but to uphold the views of the people he funds. Oh well if so. I could always bring up the Leigh Alexander [28] also, and her comment about the other side of the issue of twitter. Do these seriously not make a difference in writing an information article? I am workig on getting sources for the other side also, but it kinda has to wait till later. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really. What you have here is an unsubstantiated allegation which doesn't count for much when weighed against the general credibility of The New Yorker. As sources go on Wikipedia, The New Yorker is a gold standard RS. Gamaliel (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying the The New Yorker is a bad publication, but that specific writer seems to have some stake in this. Many of those articles listed have writers that have come out and either insulted GG or talked down to them, then went and wrote an article. Are these articles worthy of being referenced, when they could be made just to smear the opposition? PseudoSomething (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, to go with WP:RS, which you linked to me earlier, wouldn't sources that have stakes in them like that fall under questionable sources, since much of it falls under personal opinion? PseudoSomething (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No. The alleged conflict of interest is unsubstantiated, and even if it were, it's pretty slim to begin with. The New Yorker's reputation is such that I would say their judgement and reputation for accuracy and fact-checking overrides even a proven conflict of interest of this relative insignificance. Gamaliel (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't agree with you, especially since he hid his patreon as the article came out, but I don't have much say past that with my newness. I would point at the Time article more heavily though, since the writer basically said she was only going to write one side of it while antagonizing the people following GG. twitter. While that also seems incredibly unprofessional, it seems like you wouldn't be able to get any moderate position in her article. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That Twitter post is also pretty flimsy thing to use to attempt to write off a major source like Time. Sometimes the major media does not present things the way you want them to be presented, but that isn't necessarily bias or a conflict of interest, it's just a different assessment than yours. Gamaliel (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason I say it is important is that it is straight from the writer, and, paraphrasing here, but "Ha, I am only going to write bad about you". But, I guess under WP:RS, "While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." Not much else I can state until I read over them, and if I find any faults. PseudoSomething (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Others do not share your assessment of the tweet or your conclusion that it is an indication of bias. It would be inappropriate to disqualify an RS based on the unsubstantiated opinions and conclusions of editors. Gamaliel (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Not even when she wrote this quote from another article she wrote about the situation? "These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience. They don’t have to be yours. There is no ‘side’ to be on, there is no ‘debate’ to be had. " \ gamasutra. Same person, same mindset. I am trying to figure out where the line between biased and unusable starts.PseudoSomething (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, per WP:RS, biased sources are usable, but only with care. All sources are biased to some extent; it is our job as Wikipedians to use what is useful and discard the rest. I don't think this is a major conflict of interest, though; while the fact that they hid their Patreon immediately before posting the article looks bad, that's two links out in the chain. At some point, everyone is linked to everyone. Frankly, I'd be more likely to attribute any bias in the article not to the fact that he is friends with such a person, but simply the fact that they are likely to be sympathetic to the point of view that some woman is being persecuted by a bunch of neckbeard gamers; that angle on the story would appeal to a lot of folks at the New Yorker, and thus they're very susceptible to reporting something from that point of view. It is The New Yorker, after all; look at who their target audience is. Such a flimsy link is not enough to create a conflict of interest, I think, and it is usable as a RS, provided we take care to avoid letting their bias into Wikipedia. As the article clearly takes a stance on it, it is obviously biased, but we can still make use of it potentially. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think you understand journalism at all. The Telegraph article isn't "contradicting" Zoe Quinn's statements. It's properly presenting each side of the argument. The journalist is not deciding which one is correct. The writer contacted Quinn and contacted "representatives" of "#GamerGate" (how representative they are, hard to be sure) and provided each of their takes on the issue.

The article supports my point of view because it clearly demonstrates that the question of misogyny is central to the mainstream debate over this controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that they are central to the controversy; it is Zoe Quinn and her supporters' point of view that it is all about misogyny. I'm not sure why you think I think otherwise. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And it is also the predominant, mainstream point of view - not that "it is all about misogyny" but that misogyny is a key driver of the controversy. Glad to know we agree. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really. The predominent, mainstream point of view is "nerds are fighting on the internet, and we don't care," as is almost always the case with things like this. But that pretty much goes without saying. :P As for the idea that we should include in the article that it is driven by misogyny as a factual statement; we should clearly note that it is a point of view on the issue. The trouble is that, well, it is a point of view on the issue. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You're correct that we should not state it as fact that it is driven by misogyny — however, we must state that it is widely considered to be driven by misogyny. "The predominant, mainstream point of view" refers to the point of view most widely adhered to by the reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Widely considered by whom, exactly? That's not supported by any RS. Zoe Quinn and her supporters consider it to be driven by misogyny (or at least claim to believe such). There aren't any polls indicating that "the public" has any particular stance on it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Widely considered, based upon the viewpoints expressed in reliable sources. I have already listed the stack of reliable sources several times. There's even more to add now, actually. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, neither the Al Jazeera article nor the Slate article you cite state that misogyny isn't a central part of the controversy. In fact, the Al Jazeera article's very title is: "#GamerGate: Misogyny or corruption in the gaming community?" NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Judging by the continuing walls of text, this is going to take a great while longer, both to reach consensus, and to compile the eventual article. I won't be surprised if you guys are still warring a month from now and not a word gets written.
2. It is a developing event. There will likely be articles written by trusted sources a week or two from now. Maybe some new dirt gets dug up and changes the paradigm completely (thought exercise: would it change the framing of the debate if there is a lawsuit? Somebody goes to jail? I think it would).
3. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking, and so is the pageview counter. We're likely near peak traffic for this page. People will come, view the page ONCE, and go away thinking, 'wow, Wikipedia is taking a side on this.' They won't read the Talk page. They won't access the page again at a later date. They are in the majority.
4. In fact, they'd be right. By leaving a biased article up and sitting on your asses, Wikipedia is making a political statement by default.
5. Rather than them walking away thinking Wikipedia is violating NPOV, I would rather they see a stub article. Mention that the game industry alleges misogyny (1 sentence). Mention allegations of corruption and conflicts of interest (1 sentence). Leave out all the details. 14.200.20.112 (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:WRONGVERSION - as long as we have no outright BLP problems, and completely hoax information, we are not going to rush to fix it, and we don't worry about WP's page counts. We want it right at the end, not the now. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic. Crowd-sourced dismissive answers on tap. We've-heard-it-before-so-it's-not-a-problem. Got it. 14.200.20.112 (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Given how many people on either side want to get their hands on to edit this article, claiming it's biased both ways, I'm pretty certain that WRONGVERSION is the best way to go right now. --MASEM (t) 03:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor edit

Near the end of the article it says this: "This has been denied by 4Chan." Could a friendly administrator edit it to "4chan"? The C isn't capitalized ever. Minor request I know but this article is protected. Bluefist ^talk 00:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The claim "this has been denied by 4chan" is nonsensical; 4chan isn't a single entity and doesn't reflect a unified POV. Literally anyone can post on 4chan and it doesn't even require account creation (in fact, the culture of 4chan strongly encourages people not to identify themselves in any way, although a rudimentary system for doing so is provided). Saying "this has been denied by 4chan" is like saying "this has been denied by Reddit" or "this has been denied by Twitter" or "this has been denied by editors of Wikipedia". 70.24.5.250 (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Another minor edit request

At the end it says "Zoe Quinn has stated that GamerGate was manufactured by members of 4chan operating on a private channel specifically to attack her and her followers for her feminist views"

The IRC channel itself isn't private (it isn't password protected), anyone can go to Rizon and log in without even registering an username.Loganmac (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"Private" here could also mean one not well broadcasted. Mind you, we're stating what Quinn has claimed; if that's wrong from her end, there's no fault on us for that. --MASEM (t) 02:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

it's just an irc chan an anonymous person promoted multiple times in public threads on 4chan /v/ to talk about the Zoe Quinn thing 46.193.129.176 (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This is true, though I'm not sure how much emphasis we should put on any one given thing. How long is this article going to end up? Claims of a conspiracy theory from Quinn have been covered in the press, as have claims of a conspiracy theory from the GamerGater types, but we should probably avoid WP:UNDUE prominence for them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This should be deleted

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

---

Honestly this entire article should just be deleted considering how misinformed and bias it is. I know i've said this already but the POV pushing here is more blatant than I thought I would have found on wikipedia. 71.190.17.153 (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You can make your thoughts known here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GamerGate. However, supposed bias is not a reason to delete. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@71.190.17.153:It is notable. The article needs to be improved, not deleted. It does have some issues at present, but we're working on ironing them out. If you feel that it is biased, expressing how you think it is biased and how we can correct it would be helpful. Feel free to stay here and join in on the process! Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

YOU think its notable, WP:NOTNEWS says otherwise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Sources for GG

So after learning about WP:RS, I looked for some indie outlets that covered this story, and found some sources that could be used. They highlight GG's view of the situation, just a forewarning. There is quite a lot of content in each, so quoting everything would be to much. I included specific quotes from each article just to give an overview of some of the content.

(Speculative)gamenosh: Fraud in the Indie World? – FEZ Investors outed as Judges for Title’s Awards

"Recent information that has come to light in wake of the hacking of Polytron’s website reveals that several investors of FEZ have a direct connection with the IGF and IndieCade and could potentially have had a hand in the allocation of the awards."

"As it stands with the current information; there are 8+ people with a financial investment in FEZ that were directly involved with the judging process of the IGF awards."

digitimes : Commentary: Time is running out for console makers to clean up GamerGate

"What started out as an innocuous sex and bribery scandal involving, among others, a blogger at one of the gaming sectors' leading bloggs, exploded into controversy when those attempting to discuss the allegations were silenced on numerous seemingly unrelated gaming forums as well as link aggregators such as reddit.

"Outraged at the perceived lack of ethical standards erupted across social media eliciting an indignant response from a significant portion of the gaming press that "those complaining didn't understand how the industry worked". "

"However, this attempt to paint the angry gamers as a bunch of sexist, homophobic, racist males who were raging at being forced to "become politically correct" was rapidly rebuked by females, homosexuals, transsexuals and other minorities who all consider themselves gamers in the thousands using the Twitter hashtag #notyourshield."

- TFYC was a project that was developed a while ago to get more women developers into game development. There was a controversy with Zoe Quinn basically spreading negative rumors and ruining their chance. When #GamerGate started, they were at less than five thousands dollars, and now it is almost at full funding, mainly from 4chan and reddit.

apgnation: TRUTH IN GAMING: AN INTERVIEW WITH THE FINE YOUNG CAPITALISTS

"Zoe Quinn then began a Twitter discussion, which can be seen here. But the major points is she DDoS’d our site, she called us exploitative, and her PR manager Maya Felix Kramer posted my Facebook information which Zoe replied to, alerting her followers. Due to this, I received a death threat. "

techcrunch : Indiegogo Campaign Hacked This Weekend, But Wasn’t Part Of A Widespread Attack

"Reddit was the first place to notice the change, which took place over the weekend. The page in question was a campaign led by a group called The Fine Young Capitalists (TFYC), which ultimately was about raising awareness of the issues surrounding women in gaming, by generating funds that would pay the salaries of several female game developers to make any game they wanted – ostensibly those free from the typical sexism when it comes to female character development. Meanwhile, profits from the games produced were to go to cancer research."

"This attack was not one of hackers looking to take on Indiegogo as a whole, but was related to a specific online controversy between gamers and their supporters which TFYC was involved in. The narrative involves Zoe Quinn, the game developer who was reportedly sexually harassed. Further details came out after news about her story hit that put her claims into question." PseudoSomething (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart does not meet WP:RS criteria. Can't speak to the others as I'm not familiar with them. Gamaliel (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me why? It would help me understand a few things, probably. PseudoSomething (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS requires "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Breitbart has the opposite reputation, frequently engaging in factually inaccurate character assassination. It is completely unsuitable for use in Wikipedia articles. Gamaliel (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

We can't use apgnation (not an established RS), nor gamesnosh (not an established RS), nor What Culture (it's a clickbait site, though I've seen that article and there are some points it would be nice to try to back up with other articles.) Techcrunch and Digitimes seem legit. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"We can't use What Culture" because "it's a clickbait site"; but we can use Kotaku and BuzzFeed?! 70.24.5.250 (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Well it looks like so far, with about 16 hours in WP:RSN, apgnation would be ok to use since it is a direct interview, but gamenosh looks to be self published, so it isn't reliable. PseudoSomething (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well crud. I am trying to find independent sources. Would apg not be a good source though, considering it is a full interview with TFYC, who were part of the catalyst and consequence of GG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PseudoSomething (talk • contribs) 23:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The RS noticeboard would be a good place to ask about sources that we are unsure about here. Gamaliel (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha, I posted over there about the two articles. Thank you for pointing me that way. PseudoSomething (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What about Cinemablend? http://www.cinemablend.com/games/TFYC-Discuss-GamerGate-Recovering-From-Hacks-4chan-Support-67239.html Edit: they're being used as an RS elsewhere on this talk page. They even do some original research to verify Matthew's (The Fine Young Capitalists') claims. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Like Paste, it's an opinionated website so I wouldn't use it unattributed ("According to <blank> on CinemaBlend, TFYC said X") but I think it's a fair way to source TFYC's point of view. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Article was fine but changed to an extremely biased view now

I checked two days ago and this article was pretty neutral, yet now there's barely any mention of the journalistic corruption aspect of the controversy It's funny that the Eric Kain article is used to include that the movement is anti-feminist but doesn't include the numerous parts where it speaks about DMCA takedowns, The Fine Young Capitalist hacking, harassment against John Bain, and radio silence from the press, and censoring on reddit.

The line " They are tired of being dictated to by writers they refer to as social justice warriors, interested more in the issues of representation and sociocultural meaning in games and game development, then the content itself."

Was removed

As well as the line "leading to accusations of violations of journalistic ethics due to close relationship between development studios and games critics"

I really want a neutral article, I'm not against deleting mentions of harassment against Quinn or Phil Fish, nor that some comments were misogynist, but as it is the article makes it seem like the movement was started just to harass Zoe Quinn which can't be farther from the truth as various sources point out.

We all know these articles always get raided by radicals (from places known as FYAD, weird twitter, etc), as it is now it appears editors let them do as they pleasedLoganmac (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Right now the article is protected, and I will site Masem as a specific here, but a few people are working through the article to try and make sure it is balanced because of the unique nature. The best thing you can do is find good sources. I am new to Wikipedia myself, but good sources are the way the article is going to be changed, so dig around. The article is up for deletion also (my preference, but cus I am new I wont vote), so we can hope for that also. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

We cover how the reliable sources cover the subject The reliable sources see this for what it is: #PUDGATE a bunch of dicks creating an astroturf campaign to harass women, and so that is how we present it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"The reliable sources see this for what it is"; i.e. you treat them as truthful not because of any critical thinking but because you agree with them. Your POV is readily apparent here. Meanwhile, the Wikipedia article takes a further biased selection of the contents of those articles. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

That view is dishonest though, since in this situation, the reliable sources are the ones the common voice are against. I said it farther up in the thread, is that not an issue to you? Is there seriously no protocol for that? PseudoSomething (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

But that's not what the only view is. It is what it seems at the surfaces, but numerous sources we've gotten to add once unprotected dig in to other factors. There is no evidence this is only a campaign to astroturf, though certainly that did happen. --MASEM (t) 03:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no "campaign to astroturf". That notion is prima facie absurd; accusing 4chan of astroturfing makes no more sense than accusing Reddit (or Twitter, or Tumblr, or Facebook) of doing so, because 4chan isn't some big business concern, and harassing women on the internet cannot possibly lead to monetary gain for 4chan. Nobody is seriously suggesting that any of this is happening at Christopher Poole's behest. To accuse "a bunch of dicks" of astroturfing is even more ridiculous. By definition, even if everyone involved were motivated purely by misogyny (which is absolutely counter-factual), an action of this sort coordinated by "a bunch of dicks" is grass-roots. The term "astroturfing" is being used here without regard to factual accuracy, as a pejorative descriptor for "social movement I don't like". The only way there could plausibly be "astroturfing" going on here is if it were false-flag astroturfing by feminist organizations, hoping to increase the public perception of misogyny on the internet being a problem, in order to collect more donations. I am not alleging that to be true; I think it is false. But that's the only viable candidate for "astroturfing" here. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because Zoe Quinn claims it is an astroturfing harassment campaign doesn't mean it is one; a considerable number of sources have noted that it is not, including the Telegraph, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Business Insider, Slate, Digitimes, ect. Indeed, several have claimed that the claims of such are an attempt to deflect criticism of corruption in the industry, as well as of the behavior of the people involved. That one of the groups involved claims it to be such is very much noteworthy, but it ain't fact. Remember, Wikipedia adopts a NPOV; adopting the point of view of one side in a conflict is generally inappropriate. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far, there have been (a maybe still more to come) many articles that come from not only one side of the debate and the other, but even neutral or purely analytical articles. Unlike other Wiki articles where there are stretched attempts to add non-reliable sources or non-notable information (like Anita's page), I can foresee this article eventually becoming well balanced given the sheer abundance. So anyone coming here afresh with their immediate concerns should not be worry. Protecting this article is a good idea, we really just need cooler heads later down the line. Frankly Man (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

ER

Please change opening words to: "Gamergate (often referred to by the hashtag #GamerGate)..." I'm finding more (recent, anyway) sources that use #GamerGate than GamerGate, but we don't even mention it, and cite only one of them so far (probably because the article is fully protected, something I'm going to address at WP:RFPP).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No, that's just a twitter thing. We'll mention that this involves social media, and there are important hashtags, but we don't adopt twitter naming schemes for articles. --MASEM (t) 04:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hashtags haven't been "just a twitter thing" in years. Under a rock? I repeat: Reliable sources refer to it as "#GamerGate", so the name least has to be accounted for. This is not an article rename proposals.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Copy editing

Would someone mind doing a little copy editing?

Quinn and her family were subsequently targeted by [a] campaign of harassment

as were supporters such as game developer Phil Fish, [and] internet commentator John Bain.

David Auerbach of Slate argued the case was a example of a fair number of gamers who hate the journalists who cover videogames, and the journalists hate the videogame-players [it was a case of a fair number of gamers hating the journalists who cover videogames, and the journalists hating the videogamers].

In similarity with [Like] Alexander, Auerbach promoted the culture of video-games was changing but it was [asserts gaming culture is changing but it is] the ordinary video-game journalist that were [is] being phased out.

This has been denied by 4Chan [4chan].

(Just a copy edit. No comment on the worth of the content.)

Cheers! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems uncontroversial, so  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor edit request: Rephrase closing sentence about 4Chan denial

I find the article pleasantly neutral, and I am happy to see it has been locked and moderated. However, the closing sentence is a little misleading. It currently states: "This has been denied by 4Chan (25)". I believe that as 4Chan is not a single person or entity, and after having read the referenced source, a more proper sentence would be: "This has been denied by several 4Chan users (25)". Or something along those lines, to reflect the fact that 4Chan as an entity or person has not responded, and that no single person or group of persons can represent 4Chan as a whole. SplatMan DK (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That I fixed, that's reasonable.--MASEM (t) 14:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks :-) SplatMan DK (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It is locked so who edits it? also, article contains flaws that need to be fixed.

The is locked so that only mods can edit it? But what if said mods are biased? That said, here are a couple of things that by wikia standards need to be fixed in the article:

A number of commentators within and without the games industry denounced the attack on Quinn as misogynistic and unfounded.

The above line from the article needs to be elaborated on as "a number" can mean anything from 2 too a thousand. Further, the identity of these people actually bare relevance to the article as their political interest and dogma is important. Why are they claiming the attack to be misogynistic? Was it because they are feminists? Have they written other blogs/articles about misogyny? What exactly do they consider to be misogyny? all these things are important and needs to be considered in this article. Further:

Notably, Fish found himself "doxxed" after speaking in support of Quinn,

The above needs to have "supposedly" added to "found" as there have been absolutely zero evidence that he was doxxed but instead a lot of evidence suggesting he just pretended to be doxxed. Until it has actually been proven one way or another, the claim that he was doxxed should either be removed or amended to say "supposedly"--Thronedrei (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Why are they claiming the attack to be misogynistic? --- uhhhh ..... you seem familiar with the subject and your are confused about how and why "misogyny"? really? and someone identifying misogyny has to be a feminists? pffff. more of the #Pudgate of dicks astroturfing harassment attempting to masquerade as something else. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"Someone identifying misogyny has to be a feminist?" I could just as easily ask, "someone attacking a woman has to be a misogynist?". 70.24.5.250 (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The number is large but unquantifyable so "a number" is fair; there's nothing wrong saying that several people in the industry felt the attacks were misogynistic, as that is part of the reason why more of those on the GG side have spoke out that the issue is beyond misogyny and more about transparency. Additionally, there is very little doubt in the press about Fish's doxxing (yes, I have read some of the reasons that some have said he might have faked it) and there's no reliable sourcing that explains why it might have been a hoax. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

One thing to keep an eye on is whether or not we should list every individual involved in this per WP:BLPNAME and WP:HARASS. Phil Fish and John Bain are both notable persons, for instance, but a lot of other people were doxxed as well, and I'm not sure if we should give special emphasis to any individual who isn't otherwise important, though if Phil Fish actually carries through with his threat it would probably be notable. The problem is that Phil Fish has something of a history of overreaction and grand, dramatic gestures; he has "cancelled" Fez 2 previously after engaging in flame wars with people on the internet, which would make this much less notable if it was just him blowing up again. On the other hand, it might be that Phil Fish would be worth noting precisely because he has attacked gamers on the internet in the past much as he did here, which might be something worth noting in a background section leading up to the controversy. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that we should only include targets' names if they are notable, and they personalty have self-identified themselves as targets via very reliable sources, as to avoid BLP issues on that. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it important to mention everyone who was a target? Is it not enough to mention that there were several/many targets, and then just mention a few of them as examples? I am not opposed as such to include them, I am just wondering how that would add anything important to the article. This whole debacle is really interesting in terms of contemporary cultural development - both for "gamers", "internet movements" and social media. It's great that Wikipedia already has an article on it and that it is moderated so it can be developed slowly and with proper editing. But I don't think it needs to mention every target that is also a "notable" person. SplatMan DK (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor edit suggestion: Change sentence on Sarkeesian death threats

After having read the sources, I believe the sentence about Sarkeesians death threats should be changed slightly. The original sentence is: ""Sarkeesian reported receiving death threats that forced her to temporarily leave her home". However, the BBC story quoted for this is obviously not fact-checking the actual threats but only quoting Sarkeesian. And the article has a softer phrasing which I believe this article should adopt. BBC uses the phrase "compelled to leave her home" as opposed to "forced to leave her home". I think there is a huge difference. Being "forced" signals that the threats are heavily substantiated and that authorities or legal counsel told her to leave. Being "compelled" is something less, in the sence that it can simply be something you decide to do. It can, in theory (since we don't really know) be an overreaction to a bunch of trolling. As such, I believe the wiki article should adopt the phrasing used in the BBC article quoted, so that it becomes something along the lines of: ""Sarkeesian reported receiving death threats that compelled her to temporarily leave her home". SplatMan DK (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion, and I have made that change. This still would include if there were ones that threatened her at her home address, but best I can read, it was basically she was getting death threats, and they knew her address, but that doesn't mean the threats forced her to leave her home. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought that was a good idea and I'm happy to see the change was implemented. Thanks! 212.88.0.67 (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) SplatMan DK (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong link

The John Bain link doesn't link to the right John Bain... 67.204.238.12 (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --MASEM (t) 05:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

EP request

{{editprotected}}

Please add the following to a Further Reading section:

• Zaid Jilani (8 September 2014). ""I want a straight white male gaming convention": Inside the culture war raging in the video gaming world". Salon.com. Retrieved 12 September 2014.
• Sarah Kaplan (12 September 2014). "With #GamerGate, the video-game industry's growing pains go viral". Washington Post. Retrieved 12 September 2014.
• William Usher (11 September 2014). "EA Admits 40,000 Users Were Hacked After Whistleblower Steps Forward". Cinemablend.com. Retrieved 12 September 2014.
• Jordan Ephraim (10 September 2014). "10 Lessons The Gaming Industry Must Learn From #GamerGate". WhatCulture!. Retrieved 12 September 2014.
• David Hollingworth (12 September 2014). "The inherent flaws of GamerGate". PC & Tech Authority. Retrieved 12 September 2014.
• Radhika Sanghani (10 September 2014). "Misogyny, death threats and a mob of trolls: Inside the dark world of video games with Zoe Quinn - target of #GamerGate". The Telegraph. Retrieved 12 September 2014. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Thanks, JMP EAX (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

WhatCulture is not a reliable source here (additionally, it is also very biased here). Most of the other sources have been identified and will be added (See discussions above) once we can edit the article. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree that WhatCulture is not useful here. CinemaBlend is also not particularly high quality, and Usher appears to have a very distinct bias based on his other articles on the subject. When a lower profile online source's coverage is so wildly different from every mainstream publication available as well as most other online sources we need to be careful about using it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, the EA hack is documented here [29], but what hasn't happened yet is for that to come up in direct connection to GG. I mean, it is about transparency or lack thereof, but save for the CB article, no other RS has said this is part of it, so I agree we should not include that, yet. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Now we need more than one RS to introduce anything pro-GG to an article about GG? This seems like goalpost-shifting.

oppose blanket "further reading". if these are reliable sources, specific content should be proposed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree - taking out the non-RS ones, the rest are good for inline citations, and should not be delegated to general reading. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the direct connection towards the EA hack and the movement. Even checking the threads on /v/ and on some subreddits doesn't pull up a whole lot. WhatCulture isn't reliable, and some info from Washington Post and PC & Tech Authority (that one only reinforcing the Escapist article) can be used. Citation Needed | 18:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

CinemaBlend is already cited on more than a thousand Wikipedia pages, and WhatCulture on a couple hundred more. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Based on this discussion, I am declining this editprotected request for now. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I disagree with some of those sources too. But the "policy" that some Wikipedia contributors apply is: "disagrees with me == not reliable". Which is why I usually don't edit articles like this. Too many talibans... Now feel fucking offended and topic ban me. JMP EAX (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request - Responses

{{editprotected}}

This news site was doing a interview with Daniel Vavra, a key developer for Kingdom Come: Deliverance. Basically, he gives a different perspective of GamerGate from the majority of mainstream sources being used, and it could potentially be used on the responses section to address concerns of blacklisting from journalists and other people. I feel like this can help balance out the article a tad bit towards NPOV. http://techraptor.net/2014/09/12/interview-daniel-vavra/ Citation Needed | . 17:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

For one, we should only be focusing on fixing major problems while this is edit protected, aware that we need to add many new sources identified in that time. The problem here is that techraptor doesn't appear to be an RS, and while I've seen mention of Vavra's comments, that's just one dev. It might prompt more to speak out, but that's it. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Based on this discussion, I am declining this request for now. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request: Major Overhaul

Article highly biased and one-faced on the entire issue. According to many gamers, and supporters of the tag #GamerGate, it's about the corruption in gaming journalism, but as for this article, the only mention of that is at the very beginning of the article. The rest is just reports of Harassment exclusively from the supporters of the #GamerGate, never noting there has been harassment form the opposing party (see the tumblr 'GamerGate Harassment', which collects sceencaps from the "Anti-GamerGate" fellows: http://gamergateharrassment.tumblr.com/). And even accordingly, the articles never go into such detail as to why "4chan" denied the screencaps Zoe Quinn took of the public IRC, nor does it give validity to how the harassment towards Anita Sarkeesian is directly linked to the movement other than the circumstance that they happened at the same time #GamerGate began. In short, this entire article is just a list of harassment and threats that supposedly came from the #GamerGate tag. Rather than what it should be, an elaboration of the the entire issue and reports from both sides. I request a MAJOR overhaul of this article to actually focus on the actual 'issue' the movement is calling for and more reporting on the issue from both sides. Rather than how it's been a one-sided report list. Derpen (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

A Tumblr is not a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

So the Screencaps posted aren't reliable? How would that make them any more reliable than Zoe Quinn's screencaps from twitter on the "4chan IRC:?--Derpen (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Quinn's screencaps are mentioned in reliable sources, with analysis including both sides of the debate over those screencaps. I see that you're new to Wikipedia — I suggest that you read our verifiability and reliable sources policies and guidelines. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

We're not considering Quinn's screencaps as reliable either. Or more to the matter, we are going to let secondary sources determine how we should approach the evidence there, with all we can right now that Quinn claims they show an organized effort, and some of 4chan's users debunk the claim. --MASEM (t) 20:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Becuase they are so controversial, I really think we should ignore Quinn's screencaps. They don't exactly 'prove' anything, and again, 'denied by some members of 4Chan' make them seem more reliable than it is. The truth is that ANYONE could have posted, I know for a fact that several devs were logged on (they told me) and that since it's anonymous, it's impossible to tell who said what and can't pin it on anyone. - Squidly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.0.72.115 (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no point for us to get into the weeds of what the logs claim to have or are claimed not to have - we do need to note that she claimed that she had evidence via these logs, some of 4chan claimed they showed nothing. That's all we have to say at this point. There are some things a savvy reader than infer for themselves but we shouldn't go into that any more (particularly as that starts hitting BLP issues). --MASEM (t) 03:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The article is fully protected, and as you can read from the above sections, we are fully planning on trying to write a balanced account with many more reliable sources point out above (including those that identify the gamers' side of the issue). But this is not something that can be done by an editrequest. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to propose a section to be added or rewritten, please feel free to write something up, present it and gain consensus for the edit to be made. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Any discussion of GamerGate supposedly being about "corruption" should note the reliable sources pointing out the complainers' complete disinterest in actual corruption:

"In Quinn’s case, the fact that she was the subject of the attacks rather than the friend who wrote about her game reveals the true nature of much of the criticism: a pretense to make further harassment of women in the industry permissible." [30]

"It is exactly these kinds of connections that #gamergate is attacking. Not the corporate interests of PR and journalism outlets, but the personal networks and contacts utterly vital to reporting on and being aware of a vibrant and diverse culture of creators beyond the interest of commercial publishers. They don’t care that Sony gets bands like the Foo Fighters to play at massive parties each year at the trade show, E3, to an audience predominately made up of invited journalists. But the fact that a writer for Kotaku lived with some developers whose free game she later wrote about is apparently a sign of deep corruption. They are furious that a game critic, whose job is to inform a readership about happenings in games culture, would have publicly disclosed personal friendships in that culture." [31]

Gamaliel (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel, are you being intentionally inflammatory? There are plenty of articles that do make the case that GamerGate is, at least in part, about corruption. Do a better job of being neutral. Willhesucceed (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This is what reliable sources say. You are welcome to present other sources if you feel a perspective is missing from the article. Gamaliel (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request: Addition

May need to add something on this: GamerGate leads to Suicide Prevention Charity http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/137409-GamerGate-Leads-to-Suicide-Prevention-Charity Derpen (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please propose a specific edit and reach consensus. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that this fundraiser is in response to Breitbart's accusations that Quinn wasn't actually donating any of Depression Quest's proceeds to charity, which lead among other things to ongoing harassment of nonprofit employees by angry internet jerks, I think we should hold off and see if the gets any more coverage, and preferably from some stronger sources. It's been less than a day, there's no rush. -- 68.50.78.0 (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

"Stronger sources" than the Escapist? While Kotaku is already used as a source for the article? (Edit: The Escapist, itself, is also already being used as a source.) 70.24.5.250 (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a contentious point, and The Escapist is a reliable source (especially now that they've updated their policies re: reporting), so I can see no reason to hold off for more coverage or "stronger" sources, especially as it's not likely to come, considering how biased media have been in the whole affair. Willhesucceed (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

sorry, we dont lower our bar for sourcing because the more reliable sources dont cover it. thats crazytalk. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No one's saying anything about lowering the bar. The Escapist is already considered a reliable source; it's referenced elsewhere on this talk page without any objection. What's going on here? Willhesucceed (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The escapist is currently only being used to cite 4chan's side, because no more reliable sources are covering it. That's a good reason to take that source out, not to add more. We need to cover this issue the way the mainstream sources do; the escapist is not only covering this issue differently than the mainstream media is; it's covering it differently than the majority of high profile gaming blogs are. When we are talking about a BLP issue, we have to be very careful about including information that is so difficult to cite. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but in what universe can the Escapist not be considered a reliable source while Kotaku is still cited in this article? You do realize that Kotaku recently published a blatant clickbait article talking about how a Sailor Moon branded wallet allegedly resembles a vagina when opened - complete with a pixellated icon for the story? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

So, if I'm catching your drift, sources cannot be reliable on one small part of an issue because other "more reliable" sources are not covering it? This article has many single-sourced point,so I now seem to believe there's a defiance from the Administrators to considerably covr news from the other side.

And what makes the source incorrect if it's covering this issue contrary to what other media outlets are? Does that make it incorrect because other do it different? This ad-hominem you instate here is not helping anybody. And removing a "reliable" source that you've used in this article from this article, because they aren't consistently supporting a supposed side, is completely against the NPOV. This is upfront confession to the bias of this article. Derpen (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

WTF is happening here? You want to take The Escapist out? I feel like I'll need to lodge an complaint with the admins, because the work of the past days is being undone by going back to the BS one-sided state again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.113.249.206 (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The criticism that this article can't be included because it's taking a side is patently ridiculous. The Escapist article isn't taking any sides! It's reporting that a charity was started and that 4chan donated to it. What side is there to take in this? None: it's a simple statement of fact. There can be no reasonable objections to it. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually read what is said? The issue is beyond WP:RS; it is WP:UNDUE: unfairly presenting in the article a claim that is outside the scope of the mainstream views and interpretations of the subject . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not the criticism other people were making. This, I can accept. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request - Responses

I found a great \opinion piece by Liana Kerzner. In contrast to the partisanship that most other publications are engaging in, it presents a good faith perspective of the entire debacle. It also directly criticises the gaming media. For those reasons, I'd like to include the following under the Responses section:

Liana Kerzner, writing for metaleater.com, was, among other things, critical of the video game media's part in stoking the controversy, and apologised on behalf of her colleagues: "The fellow gamers I feel the absolute most sympathy for in all of this are the 'fat, white, heterosexual, cisgendered neckbeards' whose demographic was directly associated with bigotry. Columnists could have just said 'misogynist bigots,' but they didn't. [...] The generalizations were unprofessional, anti-intellectual, and dehumanizing. So, wearing my other hat as a member of the video game media, I am sorry for that. It was wrong, and you guys didn't deserve it." She concluded about the controversy: "The intentions on all sides of #GamerGate are, for the most part, sincere. I believe everyone wants a free, safe, open and honest video game media and community. There is, however, a deep divide regarding how to go about that."

Willhesucceed (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

we only use reliably published sources -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there a list somewhere of which sources are accepted as a RS and which are not? How does a new source become accepted as a RS? I don't see anything that would automatically disqualify the site as unreliable. In fact, it seems like a great source on the gaming industry. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

We look to sites that have established themselves as reliable, a history of fact checking and editorial control, and typically also consider how other established RS sites ref to such. As Metaleater.com appears to be only 2 years old at most, we don't have much history to go on - it might be different if their editorial staff had established backgrounds, but that's not the case either. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"reliable, a history of fact checking and editorial control, and typically also consider how other established RS sites ref to such". None of that sounds to me like it describes Kotaku, which is already being cited in this article. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The site's been online since 2004, and has existed since 2002. If you have a look at their About page, the site seems to take pride in hiring educated, knowledgeable writers. At least the (non-review) gaming articles are quite well researched, either through literature or interviews with multiple industry insiders. The writer spent literally a week on this last one, actually talking to people about the issues. That's *so* much more work than most sites have done, and especially "mainstream" sites. If this is not considered a reliable source, we should cull 99% of the references from this page.

It's been an incredibly frustrating experience to try to add balance and insight beyond "Misogyny!" and "Harassment!" to this article. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

We have numerous sources that outline the fact that many pro GG people have tried to point out that GG is more than just the arguments that this is a misogyny issue (eg the stuff about transparency in journalism) which is an opinion popular in other parts of the press. We are going to be able to present that side fairly with mainstream, non-gaming sources (eg Guardian, Telegraph, WA Post articles). --MASEM (t) 17:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Why can the sources not come from site known for gaming? Is there some ad-hominem towards them that I am not catching? Derpen (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

From a glance, I would say that there doesn't appear to be an editorial oversight for instance, and therefore appears self published. At the moment there are a lot of news publishers trying to cover the same subject as it's a good way to draw attention to their website, it's decent clickbait. They may be a reliable source for say the review of a game, but there doesn't appear any substance related to BLP type topics. Koncorde (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There is editorial oversight. In fact, the writer describes what went into writing and publishing this article right here. Can we admit this as a reliable source already? Willhesucceed (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't reject it offhand, but I also think your quoting of her is a bit selective and omits her clear criticism of 4chan, Reddit, etc. harassment. So I'll propose this version:

• Liana Kerzner, writing for metaleater.com, criticized the gaming media for making "unprofessional, anti-intellectual, and dehumanizing" generalizations about those who supported GamerGate, and that "as a member of the video game media, I am sorry for that. It was wrong, and you guys didn't deserve it." She also said that the gaming community needs to address a minority within its ranks that stigmatizes the rest. "The misogyny within our ranks is real. The racism is real. The homophobia and transgendered stigma is real. The stigma against mental illness is real. Our juvenile relationship with sexualized violence is real. These things may only occur in small subgroups of gamers, but that doesn't give us the right to turn a blind eye to it. ... When someone voices a sincere complaint that something is making games less fun for them, that voice should not be shouted down," she said.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't want to give her undue weight by quoting large portions (it's a 5000-word piece), so I pared it down to what I thought was notable, i.e. not included in other sources. Your edit better reflects the tone of the piece, however, and still includes the unique bits. We should leave out the sentence after the ellipsis. It's just reiterating what precedes it. So:

• Liana Kerzner, writing for metaleater.com, criticized the gaming media for making "unprofessional, anti-intellectual, and dehumanizing" generalizations about those who supported GamerGate, and that "as a member of the video game media, I am sorry for that. It was wrong, and you guys didn't deserve it." She also stated that the gaming community needs to address a minority within its ranks that stigmatizes the rest. "The misogyny within our ranks is real. The racism is real. The homophobia and transgendered stigma is real. The stigma against mental illness is real. Our juvenile relationship with sexualized violence is real. These things may only occur in small subgroups of gamers, but that doesn't give us the right to turn a blind eye to it", she wrote.

Is that good? Willhesucceed (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I'm good with that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The Fine Young Capitalists

We should discuss The Fine Young Capitalists. They've at the least been a notable sideshow throughout the entire debacle. There seems to be too much to append to a more general subsection (e.g. Other Stuff, but I'm not sure that there's enough to warrant a subsection of its own. Suggestions are welcome. In summary:

The Fine Young Capitalists are a radical feminist project which aims to empower minorities; they became embroiled in GamerGate when they started a project to develop women's video game concepts. They had problems with people associated with Silverstring Media, among them Zoe Quinn. The project was accused of being transphobic; Matthew Rappard was "doxxed"; and the furor basically would have ruined their project if not for GamerGate. Before GamerGate was called GamerGate, but after Gjoni posted about Quinn, TFYC earned the support of 4chan because of the troubles the project had endured with the industry. 4chan donated a lot of money to the cause; created a 4chan mascot, Vivian James, for the project; and requested that TFYC make informative videos about women who work in the gaming industry.

Both dailydpad.de, in their video interview with Matthew, and Cinema Blend note that The Fine Young Capitalists have received surprisingly little support from the gaming industry's media. William Usher writes for Cinema Blend that people "have been encouraged not to support TFYC as well, including notable comic book artist Gail Simone, who almost attempted to show support for the charity but was advised not to, in order to avoid upsetting the anti-#GamerGate crowd. The Fine Young Capitalists also have been on a social media block list (under the handle TFYC) by some major media outlets."

(The above is an attempt to note what's sourced. I believe all of the above is confirmed in the below sources, but if I've made a mistake somewhere, please correct me. And if you object to a source, could you please explain why? What's considered RS and what's not seems to be arbitrary.)

Sources: Le Monde, Forbes, Cinema Blend 1, Cinema Blend 2, Daily Dot, Techcrunch, Crowdfund Insider, Vox, dailydpad

Willhesucceed (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Is that a joke? Labeling a group 'radical feminist' is completely biased. Please try to suggest meaningful contributions. EvilConker (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The term "radical feminist" is well-defined. Whether it describes the brand of feminism espoused by TFYC is another question. But I don't think anyone can reasonably doubt that TFYC are at least feminist. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

To copy-paste a reply I gave below:

The sources we have on the group refer to them as feminists, and they identify themselves as such. The feminist church is broad. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

TFYC issues with Quinn will likely come up, but won't likely be a section, maybe a sentence or two. There is no way we can write about any specific incident in any detail and avoid the BLP and V landmines of trying to demonstrate the evidence. We'll likely have to leave it as claims of accusations (in the case of TFYC, their reported problems with Quinn). --MASEM (t) 15:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

TFYC's claims about Quinn are potentially libelous. If we are going to include 'their side' in any form we need to use extremely high quality sources that we can trust to report on them responsibly. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there's more value to TFYC's involvement than merely as an extension to the Quinn story.

1. The gaming industry has been accused of impropriety. This is a project that's formulated on the zeitgeist of the moment and virtually nobody in the media's touching them; they've essentially been blacklisted since they started, first with allegations of transphobia and then later through their association with GamerGate. Cinema Blend and the interviewer for dailydpad.de raise the issue.

2. Pro-"GamerGaters" are labeled misogynists. As a counterpoint, the same people who support GamerGate have supported this project. They created a great mascot and wanted to know more about women in the industry, which is why TFYC made videos about established women in the industry.

3. Pro-"GamerGaters" are accused of harassing people. There's proof that the opposite is true, also.

Referencing TFYC in the relevant topics would lend more dimension to the issues. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, if we get details into the specifics of such accusations, we will never get a neutral article. We have to go into what started this (Quinn's ex's accusation) but this final article should end up addressing the larger issues that some of the specific accusations reflect. So yes, we will likely be mentioning the creation of the TFYC mascot as supporting GG, but we aren't going to try to figure out if TFYC did or did not harass others (or even if we have to bring that up). --MASEM (t) 16:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I may point out that this entire article is quite biased and misleading. It doesn't delve into what the supporters of #GamerGate are "fighting for" (A.K.A. what the "About" section should be about), nor does it include the fact that there has been harassment from BOTH sides. But here, we are left with a list exclusively about the harassment from the Pro-GamerGate side. And I've been noticing quite the pattern. Anytime there is a source from Pro-GamerGate side, it's turned down for the "source not being reliable".

I never knew that Wikipedia held a list of sites and sources that were reliable, if you're sensing my condescension. With that same logic applied to other sources in Wikipedia articles, of said articles would be seen as "unreliable" for not being up to the RS feed standard you so highly regard. Even to the point where you turn down an article from TheEscapist, a source you regard as reliable, that tells of the going-ons of a #GamerGate charity because "It's not reported by other sources", despite the fact that this article alone has many single-sourced points. I do not understand such this raw defiance to report from the other said of the issue. Derpen (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

REmember the article is locked down for a few more days, so we know we have to add in the other arguments from the GG side once we can decide on the right language. The bias is only temporary because the article was given full protection preventing routine editing. Note that I'm not 100% sure if the Escapist's articles here are necessasrily unusable, but we do have to be aware at least one other written by the same written puts their bias on their sleeve, so we have to be careful; it doesn't rule it out, but we'd rather see similar coverage from another source on the same issue just in case. But one thing we have to worry about here is the whole aspect of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. If a topic is only being touched on by one source, no matter how reliable, then giving it extensive coverage is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

To get back to the points (1,2,3) I raised above: we don't need to go into lurid detail. Presently, the article is far from balanced, and including the above information where appropriate would provide better context and in fact make it more neutral. Willhesucceed (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe that this article should be gotten rid of and not touched until it is over, because this is not both sides and it never will be until this is over. I was hoping to at least see a little objectivity, but this is insanity. I cannot even believe that this is what passes for objectivity now. Is it alright to just kowtow to anyone's demands for nothing at all? "TFYC issues with Quinn will likely come up, but won't likely be a section, maybe a sentence or two?" Is this really all the attention that they deserve? I'm pretty sure that the TYFC played a giant role in all of this and deserve at least a section to talk about what happened. Their inclusion into this whole situation is an important part of this story.Thegostofnev (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

As somebody who has seen both sides of the coin, I can understand the frustration people are having with the article. We're aware people on both sides (editors included) have attempted to push agendas left and right, and the goal right now is trying to get it balanced even if it takes awhile. Current events like this are always subject to controversy although GamerGate in particular is getting a tad bit more. Everything here is a work-in-progress. Citation Needed | 16:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of things flying around in terms of "He said she said" that while we could probably source some of those, we can't do justice to all, so it is better, keeping a neutral POV, to only touch on the major points. We are not here to justify or vilify one side or the other, we're here to report that there was a period of about 3+ weeks (still going) that caused a major introspective review of the gaming industry by all parties involved due to issues that have been building for a while. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This is by far the most difficult and problematic Wikipedia article I've ever been involved with given the manifold issues, policies, and agendas in play. The only way forward I can see is to edit from from a medium range, in a manner of speaking. But finding the right scale and granularity to describe this hyper-kinetic Koosh ball shall take some time. kencf0618 (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

translated to Wikipedian: it is WP:TOOSOON to have the article because we dont know what (if anything) the reliable sources are going to make of this thing]]. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I dislike using the cliché, but in a lot of ways GamerGate is the perfect storm for Wikipedia in terms of an intractable, problematic article. I knew it would be hairy, but good Lord...! kencf0618 (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

To an extent, Wikipedia is involved, not because of this article, but because of the articles on Zoe and Anita and a few others that existed prior to GG that have been targets from off-site users to be edited to fix what they see as NPOV issues in how they are covering these controversial persons. I don't know how well we can document that fact for this article here or if it even needs to, but we've been here before and we can work through it. We shouldn't be ignoring a topic that is notable and this significant an event in the short history of video games. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Just so. This is a topic with a lot of moving parts (to say the least), and everyone perforce wants to control the narrative, because on Wikipedia that information is sticky, and so GamerGate has taken on a life of its own beyond the specifics of the harassment campaigns directed against Z&A und so weiter. I was discussing this very topic with a friend today, and she said that while her gamer friends have some concerns about gaming journalism, they do not want to be associated with misogynistic [expletive deleted]. kencf0618 (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The edit protection is going to be lifted soon. Predictions: 1. it will be locked again within the hour due to additional edit warring. 2. the final shape with the new lock will be as unsatisfactory and biased as this article. A simple headcount suggests the antis will come out on top, although this will be (probably) mostly down to luck. 3. Everybody will assume it is Wikipedia's official stance. Which, in a way, it is by default. Yes, yes, WRONGVERSION whatever, I'm sure there will eventually be a high-quality neutral article in place. It's just that nobody cares if it's correct in the end because nobody's going to come back and read it again. 14.200.20.112 (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't worry about people that might read an article on WP once, feel it is bad, and never come back. WP is a continously improving resource, so we're rather have the readers that come back and even help to participate to improve. And no, we're not going to do a head count and say that the anti-GG side should be favored. We have to rewrite the article to the point that neither side is "right" (barring any legal cases that may result). --MASEM (t) 00:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We write the article to reflect how it is reflected by the mainstream reliable sources. If the reliable sources primarily focus on the unabashed crude harassment of the GG hashtaggers, then we will too.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep. We have our own habitation and a name and protocols; the extant citations are what they are. Which is currently something of a meta-miasma, granted, but if, say, the FBI issues a criminal complaint it'll be a whole 'nother story. In any case we wait on developments, and we do what we can with what we've got. kencf0618 (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Except, that now, most mainstream (non-video game sources) are not overtly critical of the GG side and are trying to explain what their point is. The last few major articles we've gotten from places like the WA post are going to help us write a more balanced article. --MASEM (t) 01:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

On the headcount, it actually works like this: people will edit war -> since there is a set limit on reverts per person, which side gets more airtime basically comes down to which side contains more unique IP addresses -> If the protection process involves a perfectly neutral admin who clamps down without reading, article is more likely to get frozen on the side with more airtime. Assuming the article will come out unbiased assumes agreement, which is unlikely any time soon.

The problem with the WRONGVERSION policy in this case: viewer interest is very likely to drop off a cliff in a couple of months (probably less). While it is important to have a high-quality final version, it's also important to have acceptably unbiased versions in-between. Because for the vast majority of people who doesn't have an opinion either way and whose interest stops at reading a wiki article, it's the last version they will ever read. What's the point of an excellent article if only 1% of your audience reads it, but 99% read the low-quality protected version? Who are you writing it for? As an unrelated example: If I were a PR agent and I could get my client's wiki page to say the right things for the month or so after a big scandal, I'd call that a victory regardless of what it says afterwards.
14.200.20.112 (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

we are not here to play marketeers. but if there is anything that is obviously wrong, just start a section with the sources and gain consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

yeah, consensus is not going to happen. My proposal would be to delete everything after and including the sentence starting "Writing in Paste, Garrett Martin", and then lock it for a month. Less is more. p.s. I am going to quote your statement earlier in the thread: "pffff. more of the #Pudgate of dicks astroturfing harassment attempting to masquerade as something else." Unseemly! Also puts the rest of your statements denying validity of pro-GG sources into perspective. 14.200.20.112 (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If " consensus is not going to happen. " then there is nothing that is "obviously wrong" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess from my end this raises the issue of "what is GamerGate" again. If GamerGate is seen to be a term to cover the whole event, from the release of private information about Quinn. through to now, with everything in between, then it is necessarily going to be very broad. Alternatively, if GamerGate is seen to be a term to refer to a movement to bring about change in games journalism, as a response to perceived bias in reviewing and an emphasis on certain types of critical analysis, then it will have a narrower focus. Both accounts start from the initial harassment and allegations against Quinn and, to a lesser extent, Sarkessian. However, if we take the second understanding of GamerGate, other issues relating to Quinn, where they are not related to journalism, are out of scope. Thus TFYC issues would be irrelevant to GamerGate, as they were not a major trigger for GamerGate (which was focused on journalism). My understanding was that were were working with the second interpretation. - Bilby (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Either way, TFYC is still relevant. If the narrower focus: TFYC's treatment before and during GamerGate by the gaming media is relevant to critique of its journalism. If the broader focus: whatever part of the outline I posted above that's deemed non-libelous, as TFYC and its supporters are both directly involved with the furor and a concrete example of pretty much everything GamerGate (accusations of misogyny, the issue of harassment, the industry blackout, social justice negatively affecting people in the industry, etc.). Willhesucceed (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're stretching the importance of the media with TFYC. Whatever Quinn may or may not have said or done with TFYC, it has no particular bearing on the media. Perhaps you can sneak in TFYC by talking about the lack of coverage they are said to have received, but that's a bit of a stretch. In regard to the broad interpretation, then yes, TYFC and Quinn fit, but then GamerGate becomes essentially about harassment and misogyny as much as it is about the gaming media, and that is an interpretation resisted by those involved in the movement. - Bilby (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Bilby, I've been saying the same thing throughout "what is GamerGate?". Show us what GamerGate is and show us the sources, then we can sort out the article. Until then and forever more it will be more tabloid than encyclopedic. Koncorde (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Koncorde, do you not understand that literally because of what GamerGate is, none of the popular media/websites that you view as reliable sources will talk about it in a fair way? The only time it is talked about on sources you will accept is where it is discredited as an harassment campaign. There are many sites where people have laid out what the truths/ideals of GamerGate are, but you won't find them on popular media/sites, because literally the entire point of GamerGate is about how these sites/media don't follow ethical journalist rules, and are all full of nepotism helping each other out.Slimneb (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Video game journalism is simply not important enough for it to be remotely credible that the mainstream press would put their reputations at risk by publishing false information. We report what the reliable sources say, and we don't determine whether or not they're reliable based on how well they support a given opinion, even when that opinion involves a conspiracy theory about journalistic corruption. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

As Tara says, the idea that not one single reliable source wouldn't "break ranks" over something like video games is not rational. Please bear in mind that pretty much any fringe idea can find mainstream traction somewhere in the press, be it 9/11 conspiracies, Chemtrails, MH370 or whatever is causing / curing cancer this week but your argument is Video Gaming is too...taboo? Koncorde (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There are sites that are posting alternative views, interpretations, understandings, but they're not considered reliable sources most often because they're new and don't have a track record. I mention Metaleater, which is a great site for video game stuff, and has existed for 12 years, and am told it's unreliable. The one source that's still considered reliable, Cinema Blend, is now being attacked because it's not in lock-step with everyone else.

As for the "MSM", they're going with what the big gaming sites are saying. Video games aren't politics, after all—why bother to do any independent research? And the right won't dig into this because, remember, video games are evil. And then there are people like Jenn Frank who have ties with Quinn and Silverstring.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Willhesucceed (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

National Enquirer has been around for almost 100 years. Age has very little to do with reliability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"Context matters", it's opinion and opinion is allowed, and it's a secondary source. It's got educated, knowledgeable writers who are subject to editorial control. The feature writer for their gaming section does extensive research on every article they write. What exactly disqualifies it? Willhesucceed (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I take serious issue with us calling this this group 'radical feminists.' Many of the comments members of this group have made are extremely problematic to say the least. Their self-serving commentary alone is not enough to legitimize this claim when their website is full of MRA talking points. What feminist would belittle a woman who feels unwelcome in a male-dominated industry by saying "the problem with considering women as being equal is you’re not impressed by them just being women." That's an anti-feminist perspective: that giving women an advantage in a situation where they're ordinarily disadvantaged is the real sexism. If we're going to cover this group's involvement at all, we need to stick to what the high quality sources say about them. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The sources we have on the group refer to them as feminists, and they identify themselves as radical feminists. The feminist church is broad, as a look at the relevant Wikipedia section will reveal to you. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The sources that we have on this are extremely weak, the group's relevance to the article is marginal, and their own behavior is decidely anti-feminist. This is why I think we need stronger sourcing for any information we include on them. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Vox refers to them as "very feminist". Le Monde refers to them as feminist. Both very reliable sources.

2. Erik Kain for Forbes notes that the group self-identifies as radical feminists, and notes that their ideology differs significantly from mainstream feminism. Let me refer you to Wikipedia's own article on radical feminism: TERFs are among the people considered feminists. Separatist feminists are also considered feminists. The feminist church is broad.

3. There's a very strong academic understanding of feminism that underpins their, according to you, "anti-feminist" attitudes. Matthew explains some of this thinking in the first hour of this interview, and also in his dailydpad.de interview linked above. They even have their own Youtube channel that provides insight into their feminist views. If anything, they're far better feminists than the average contemporary feminist.

4. There are no gainsaying sources.

If your objection is that we should refer to them as "feminist" instead of "radical feminist", I'll concede that. If you want us to not refer to them as feminist at all, you'll have to support that request with reliable sources. You can't, and therefore the answer will have to be "no". Willhesucceed (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of TFYC, I read in an unreliable source (or an aside from a reliable one) that TFYC and Quinn have supposed settled the matter between them. If we can source this, this would be good to have but I'm not having luck finding a source. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The source was TFYC's blog; the post has since been deleted and IIRC the link redirects to the blog post I linked just above. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that I found too, the links to the blog post gone, and looks like there were complaints when they apologized and pulled it. I doubt we'll be able to source this well. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That's the problem with using them as a source, though: their comments on the issue within the past few weeks have been contradictory. They've changed their story more than once. At this point, we need to be relying on what reliable sources are saying (if indeed they're saying anything at all) about them and their part in the issue. Interviews on small gaming sites and their own blog aren't useful, especially since their involvement is peripheral at best. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Tara, read my reply to you above, and then seriously consider dropping this. Please. Willhesucceed (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

(Several edit conflicts later)Their comments on their history with Quinn have been contradictory, which makes the group themselves unreliable source for the purposes of this article. We certainly do not have a good source for 'radical feminist,' despite your objections, but that's not the only issue here. Their involvement is marginal at best and they're being given undue weight here.

This edit is out of line, by the way. It substantially changes the comment after I'd replied to it in a way that's very dishonest. That, coupled with your rather dismissive comments ("consider dropping this. Please." and an entire bullet point dedicated to the word 'Stop,' for example) are creating a very hostile tone. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Would you try to engage with people in good faith. I changed it because when I looked through the sources I realised that no one referred to them as "radical feminist", only they themselves.

The job of Wikipedia contributors is not to judge the reliability of primary sources. You'll see I was smacked down up above for making exactly the same sort of complaint, rightly so. If we're going to start judging primary sources for ourselves, we'll also have to turn our eyes to Quinn and Sarkeesian. We might as well rewrite the entire article to reflect our understanding of the issues. That's not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is about collecting information from reliable, non-primary sources and providing it to readers in a coherent form.

Willhesucceed (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The more forthright approach would have been to follow up in a subsequent comment, say 'ah, I see, that's true, I was misremembering,' and if you'd like, to strike the word, but not remove it entirely. As it is you've just changed the comment so it looked like I in my response made a claim that I did not make.

When nearly every comment you've made to me has been in some way or other dismissive or rude, you aren't really in a position to tell me that I'm not 'engaging in good faith.' In the future, rather than beginning by making extremely abrasive comments and toning them down in edits, please try considering your tone before you click save. Many people read active discussions on talkpages revision by revision, and making abrasive comments and then editing them out still contributes to a hostile tone.

Your comment about primary sources is puzzling. We should generally not be using them at all when there are no secondary sources available. We are absolutely not able to evaluate them ourselves: we should report what the reliable sources report. That doesn't change that TFYC are only tangentially related to this issue, rarely mentioned in mainstream press and generally given very little space when they are. Given that fact, and given that their comments on the issue have been contradictory, we need to be careful about what if anything we say about the group.

And please don't tell me 'what Wikipedia is about.' You're a single purpose account that has adopted a battleground mentality in attempting to make this article more favorable towards GamerGate. Your approach is only making the process here more difficult. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"battleground mentality" You've consistently and constantly opposed giving the pro-GamerGate side any more nuance than "Bigots!" I am not the one here who has adopted a battleground mentality.

"Your comment about primary sources is puzzling." You brought up removing TFYC because you considered them contradictory, but whether they're contradictory is irrelevant because whatever comments it is that you deem contradictory cannot be sourced, anyway.

"please try considering your tone before you click save" Alright, I apologise for being snippy. It's just that you seem to have no conception of feminist theory beyond what's popular this decade. That, or you haven't bothered to find out what TFYC is about. Maybe you should educate yourself about them. Feel free to click the video links I posted up above. You also seem to be under the misapprehension that they're a pro-GamerGate group. They've been decidedly neutral. What they have supported is 4chan and anybody else's willingness to fund a charity for women. Just because you take money from Christians doesn't mean you're supporting anti-abortion.

To reiterate: TFYC deserve mention because they're relevant to the narrative that GamerGate are misogynists. TFYC further deserve mention because they're relevant to alleged impropriety on the part of the gaming media. They're also relevant in showing that neither "side" of GamerGate has behaved particularly well, although, certainly GamerGate's behaved much worse. These are all things that should be included in order to avoid painting a black and white picture of the situation. Reality is not a caricature, so let's avoid giving that impression of it in the article. Eight different publications have written about them. That's a sizable number. Erik Kaine wrote paragraphs about them, Le Monde a paragraph, Cinema Blend two articles, Vox two sentences in order to give 4chan context (see, they considered that important), Le Monde a paragraph, Daily Dot a whole article ... With that in mind, an individual paragraph, or a sentence here and there to add dimension to the rest of the story will give them their due weight. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"battleground mentality" You've consistently and constantly opposed giving the pro-GamerGate side any more nuance than "Bigots!" I am not the one here who has adopted a battleground mentality. I disagree. The comments I've cited and others have been quite combative. As I said, you're an WP:SPA who's clearly here to create a pro-gamergate slant in Wikipedia's coverage, so a battleground mentality is to be expected, but your framing of my stance is innappropriate and innacurate.

It's just that you seem to have no conception of feminist theory beyond what's popular this decade. You just apologized for being 'snippy' and insulted me in the same breath. Just saying. I'm plenty 'educated' about TFYC, thank you. I don't agree with your assessment of them; more importantly, our assessments of them aren't relevant here.

To reiterate: TFYC deserve mention because they're relevant to the narrative that GamerGate are misogynists. Can you source this? Do you have reliable sources that state that they disprove the 'narrative' that you wish to disprove? Again, they're mentioned occasionally, but if you are including this information to make the case that GamerGate is not primarily a campaign of backlash against women in gaming, you're going to need to cite sources that demonstrate that, and show the group's importance is high enough to devote space to them here. They've been mentioned several times, but briefly, as asides to the larger issue rather than an important part, and at least one of the sources you're counting has specifically called out GamerGate's support of them as being out of 'spite.' If you are trying to present a 'narrative' here, you need to source that narrative, not just cobble together cherry picked mentions that tell the story you want to tell without regard for the story the sources you're using are telling. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"battleground mentality" your framing of my stance is innappropriate and innacurate Back at ya?

they're mentioned occasionally, but if you are including this information to make the case that GamerGate is not primarily a campaign of backlash against women in gaming [...] I believe I've shown their importance is high enough. I'm not trying to prove that the controversy hasn't been a backlash against women. I'm simply stating relevant sections of the article should be nuanced, and that TFYC provides some of that nuance. Again, a short paragraph or a few sentences here and there will give them their due weight. Willhesucceed (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I've given specific examples of language you've used that is unduly combative. All youv'e done is inform me that I am 'consistently and constantly opposed giving the pro-GamerGate side any more nuance than "Bigots!"' Your evidence of that is, apparently, merely the fact that I disagree with you.

You have not 'shown that their importance is high enough.' You've said you think that TFYC are relevant to the 'alleged impropriety;' you need to cite that 'alleged impropriety' for it to be a useful argument for inclusion. You say that it proves that 'neither side behaved particularly well;' you need to cite that. The MSM sources we have so far have done no more than acknowledge that they exist (and in one case, state that the donations appear to have been out of spite). Your arguments for inclusion: - that they prove Zoe Quinn did something 'bad' - are not sourced. The reasons you're giving for including this information are not sourced. Without sources, this amounts to original resarch, including information to construct a different narrative than your sources are presenting. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, you win. I don't care about this anymore. BB in a few months. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

On Reliable Sources

A large chunk of the discussion can be summed up as 'Source X is/is not reliable because Y'. It is poorly formatted and confusing to read through, not to mention it is impossible to tell at a glance what the official, admin views are. Let's have a thread about it.

Bring up an source/article, plus why you think it's reliable/not. Most importantly, if you have admin rights/represent Wikipedia consensus/can cite specific guidelines/have a direct line to Jimbo/is a prophet of cthulu, say so up front. 14.200.20.112 (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI - there are no "official admin" views of content. Admins are merely the folks with the mop who have the ability to clean up messes according to the consensus of the community. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

A huge amount of this seems to be gossip and supposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.50.220 (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Including those which Wikipedia calls "reliable sources". --Artman40 (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We should downgrade in "reliability" for this topic any article that claims one or more of these things (the more, the worse, obviously):

1. That the GamerGate hashtag was started by 4chan. It was started by Adam Baldwin.

2. That the notyourshield hashtag was started by 4chan. It was started by an individual dude.

3. That Eron Gjoni claimed Quinn slept with Grayson for professional gain. The primary source does not support this at all.

All three of these claims are very easy to fact-check. Failure to do so speaks to the unreliability of the source for this particular topic. I don't know if any such articles are being used as sources, but if they are, they should be reconsidered. Willhesucceed (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No. We don't judge the reliability of sources based on whether or not the represent a topic the way you want it represented. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't judge a source according to facts? Willhesucceed (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you know the facts? Again, what makes this article difficult to right is that the specific events involve a lot of accusations with little evidence or evidence that we are unable to use on WP, so some of the specifics of these accusations do not need to be included at all. Mentioning Baldwin as one of the first to use the GamerGate name on social media, yes; but we cannot assure it was started by him, for example. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

In the specific cases cited here, yes, we do know the facts. Nobody has turned up a prior use of the hashtags, even though it would be very much in the interest of some of the people involved to "prove" they were "started by 4chan" (i.e., the people who have been going around spreading those false rumours). The only people who've been making those claims (AFAICT: Quinn herself, and anyone she can get to take her seriously on this point) have presented flimsy evidence that is easily refuted (for example, an IRC log was cited, but it was chronologically after Baldwin's tweet, and referred to Alec Baldwin, not Adam Baldwin - who I understand is not actually related). Regardless, if there is concrete evidence for the claim that Baldwin started the tag, and a putatively reliable source flatly claims otherwise without evidence, I don't see why the source should be taken at its word.

As for Gjoni's claims, at least one of the sources linked directly to them; it is easy to verify for yourself what is and is not claimed there. That is not a subjective matter. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Biased, with concealed WP:OR right off the top

The first paragraph of the Background section:

In August 2014 personal, private and sensitive information of the video game developer Zoe Quinn was posted to the internet by an ex-boyfriend.[7] His information included allegations regarding a level of personal impropriety in her relationship with a video game journalist from Kotaku.[8][9][10] Kotaku editor-in-chief Stephen Totillo stated that the writer had not written anything about Quinn after beginning the relationship and had never reviewed her games.[10]

Citation 7 is this New Yorker article; it does not provide the August 2014 dating, and does not mention any "personal, private and sensitive information" other than alleging a relationship with a journalist. Calling the information "personal, private and sensitive" is editorialization that is not supported by any reliable secondary source here.

Citation 8 is this Guardian article; it only mentions "a spiteful blogpost by the ex-lover of indie games developer Zoe Quinn" in passing, saying nothing whatsoever about the allegations therein.

Citation 9 is this Slate article; it does not mention Ms. Quinn at all, nor the blog post. (Perhaps this previous article by the same author was intended?)

Citation 10 is this Kotaku article; it speaks only of "a possible breach of ethics involving one of our reporters" that, while involving Ms. Quinn and the "journalist from Kotaku" in question, does not make any mention of the source of the allegations. Connecting them to Ms. Quinn's ex's blog post is therefore WP:OR. Further, this source cannot reasonably be considered an impartial, reliable, secondary source, because Mr. Totilo has an obvious vested interest in defending the staff of his publication. Mr. Totilo may have disclaimed any wrongdoing by the journalist in question, but I see no reason why this disclaimer should be given any more weight than the accusations of Ms. Quinn's ex himself (which incidentally have been strawmanned in most reporting I've seen of them.

While it may be the case that the blog post being referred to makes these allegations, along with other information that might be considered "personal, private and sensitive" (although, unless you want to introduce lawyers into the discussion, that's WP:SUBJECTIVE), the sources being cited here don't make, or even properly support the argument being presented. That makes it WP:OR.

70.24.5.250 (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Ref 7 certainly does support that statement, and 8-10 support the following statement without synthesis. Woodroar (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I made a very clear and considered argument as to how the refs do not support the statements. I would appreciate if you put in a little more effort than to flatly contradict me. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Ref 7 states, "at the end of August she was “doxed,” a slang term for document tracing, which is when a person’s personal details—home address, phone numbers, bank details, and, in some cases, social-security number—are made public on the Internet". Refs 8-10 restate the source of the allegations and discuss how the relationship is seen as improper. I do agree that the second Slate source you mention goes more in-depth. I'm sorry about the shortness of my reply but I'm in the middle of playing a video game at the moment. :) Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The "doxing" mentioned in Ref 7 is not stated by the article to have anything to do with Ms. Quinn's ex. Details of the sort described are not included in the blog post and nobody has been alleging they came from there. Ref 8 mentions the source of the allegations, but nothing about what is alleged. These are the only quotes from the article that mention Quinn in any way: "A spiteful blogpost by the ex-lover of indie games developer Zoe Quinn, and the launch of the latest Tropes vs Women video by Sarkeesian, which analyses the sexist depiction of women in some games, have led to reams of appalling threats and abuse online.... The wretched miscreants that swamp Quinn, Sarkeesian and others with vile threats every time they post a video, a story or a tweet, have come to symbolise community." Ref 9 does not mention a source of the allegations in any way. It is entirely about later events in the controversy. Ref 10 also says nothing about the involvement of Ms. Quinn's ex. It only says that the Kotaku journalist "has been accused" of such and such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.5.250 (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the defense by Totilo is reliable and, more importantly, true. It makes factual statements — that Grayson did not write anything about Quinn after beginning the relationship and that Grayson never wrote a review of Quinn's work — that are uncontroverted. No reliable source is reporting anything that contradicts Totilo's statements, nor is any reliable source even questioning Totilo's statements. Therefore, the factual conclusions stand.

You will note that the article does not state, in Wikipedia's voice, that the claims are false. Instead, it states the positions taken up by each side of the argument. It's not Wikipedia's problem if the available facts about Grayson's journalistic work tend to suggest one side or the other is true. If there is a reliable source reporting facts that tend to support the other position, let us include them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

But the absence of reliable sources contradicting Totilo isn't sufficient. You've already told me that there has to be a reliable source for claims of harassment of people posting on the #gamergate tag. There aren't any reliable sources saying they aren't being harassed.

Kotaku, and by extension Totilo, should not be considered a reliable source for anything. It's a blatant clickbait site.

Meanwhile, all of a sudden you're talking about "available facts", when I've already pointed to things that are objectively true on this talk page and been brushed off with WP:VNT. That's flatly hypocritical.

Besides which, that still ignores the original point that Totilo does not in any way connect the allegations to Ms. Quinn's ex. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Kotaku is considered a reliable source by WikiProject Video Games; at any rate, it's certainly a reliable source for its own viewpoints, and given that we're publishing accusations of misconduct against it, we can hardly omit its own official reply to those accusations.

Yes, I'm talking about facts that are published in reliable sources. The key is that there are reliable sources. Totilo's statements are repeated and commented upon in a wide variety of reliable sources, and none of them so much as question, much less contradict, Totilo's statements. Therefore, there is no other POV about them which needs to be represented.

It doesn't matter that Totilo doesn't directly connect the allegations to Quinn's ex. Other sources cited (or citable) make the connection to the allegations for us. It's not prohibited synthesis to juxtapose multiple reliable sources that are verifiably discussing the same thing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Something being published in a reliable source does not make it a fact. Your deliberate conflation here is quite frustrating. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

But as long as we're talking about reliable sources: WP:VG/RS tells me that The Escapist is also considered an RS, despite multiple people on this page trying to argue they shouldn't be used. They don't list BuzzFeed, which is pretty clearly a clickbait site that I would argue should not be used. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request - interpretation of Erik Kain's article

'According to Erik Kain, writing in Forbes, the GamerGate movement is driven by an anti-feminist backlash against the increasing diversity of voices involved in cultural criticism of video games. "What it boils down to is many people feeling upset that the video game space has been so heavily politicized with a left-leaning, feminist-driven slant," he said.[3]'

I draw your attention to that first sentence. Is the proceeding quote supposed to be justification for it? It's not. The former does not follow from the latter.

I suggest it's reworded:

'According to Erik Kain, writing in Forbes, the GamerGate movement is driven by an anti-feminist backlash against the increasing propensity for cultural criticism of video games. "What it boils down to is many people feeling upset that the video game space has been so heavily politicized with a left-leaning, feminist-driven slant," he said.[3]'

That's a simple edit that preserves the overall meaning without inserting unnecessary bias. Willhesucceed (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything biased about the old wording. What exactly does your change add? Don't just throw around the word 'bias;' explain why the difference is important. -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

As it stands, it implies that the GamerGate movement dislikes diversity, but as #notyourshield and support for TFYC prove, that's not the case. The criticism has been (and is clearly characterised as such by Erik Kain, in the quote provided) that video game criticism is increasingly politicised, and that this is seeping too much into criticism/reviews. It just so happens that this politicisation, until now, has been feminist. My rewording clarifies what the issue is. Willhesucceed (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that either of those things 'prove' that GamerGate is not primarily a backlash against social justice, and a vast majority of our sources back that up, but that's not my point. How does your rewording clarify anything? You're just cluttering the sentence with more words that don't add any new meaning. You're not even attributing this 'propensity' to any source. -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

1. The source is the Forbes article. It's right there in the quote. Erik Kain explains in the article that socially conscious, and especially feminist criticism, has been increasing in the video game industry, and then says "the video game space has been so heavily politicised".

2. I'm decluttering the sentence, if anything.

3. The vast majority of claims are of misogyny, not anti-feminism, so the edit is necessary anyway even by your reasoning.

Willhesucceed (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It's actually pretty much all of his subsequent sentences that appear to qualify the "increasing diversity". To quote "they have no problem with more women and gay people represented in games; they simply don’t want every game to be critiqued based on these factors" etc. Koncorde (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The portions of the sentence you are removing are supported by the source and I don't think you've made a good argument for removing them. But the phrase 'propensity for' is puzzling and I don't understand why you want to add it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

(Reposting, because it mysteriously disappeared in an edit NorthBySouthBaranof made while replying to me elsewhere:) Even if it isn't biased, it's misrepresentative. Kain does not argue that the cultural criticism comes from "increasingly diverse voices", and in fact, they objectively don't - if you look at the staff lists for Kotaku, Polygon etc. you will note that they're still overwhelmingly white males. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed section approach - "Issues"

Given sources above, I think we can create a section on the core issues central to GamerGate, all which have been things building from the past. There are four major issues that I can source from those already ID'd on this page, which we can discuss in historical terms:

1. The distrust of gaming journalism by gamers - this extends back to Jeff Gerstmann's outster from Gamespot, and then the more recent Doritogate but there's other case I think we can cite too.
2. The rise of the indie game, which is giving developers voices they would not normally have by the traditional publishing market, including the means to voice specific viewpoints. We can then mention the previous issues that Quinn had back last year in regards to the announcement of Depression Quest
3. The increase in "citizen journalism" via YouTube, Twitter, etc. giving gamers a voice that would have not been heard otherwise. This has both positive and negative benefits, and we can point to cases of both, and that we had problems last year with game devs + journalists being threatened by such.
4. The changing nature of what a "gamer" is, pointing to the recent news about females being the majority of gamers, due to how these include mobile and casual games, and that there is a concern by the more hardcore gamers that this is causing devs and journalists to "forget" about that market.

GG is basically where all these areas intersected in one short event, bringing attention of the world to these growing issues. I would probably put this before the actual events since this would all be historically before the actual events. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You're omitting the core issue discussed most widely by the reliable sources: the harassment of females in the gaming industry. As the Washington Post puts it, Sexism in gaming is a long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable problem. It’s also the crux of the industry’s biggest ongoing battle being waged on Twitter under the hashtag “#GamerGate.”

It is inextricably intertwined with the debate because the level of sexism, misogyny, harassment and hostility shown has poisoned the well. As Vox notes, The #GamerGaters have some actually interesting concerns, largely driven by the changing face of video game culture. But those concerns have often been warped and drowned out by an army of trolls spewing bile, often at women. "But whatever the higher motivations of some of those involved, the debate has had such a toxic undercurrent of abuse and anti-feminism that it has poisoned the whole concept. If this is about ethics, it cannot also be about systematic harassment. Those two contradict each other completely." (Keith Stuart, The Guardian) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily call it out as "harassment" but I do agree the treatment of women and/or sexism in the industry is an issue to include. We can point this out, and this could be where to include Tropes vs Women and the criticism that she got for that before this event. ("Harassment" is a harsh word, lets save it for where non-VG, independent 3rd party highly reliable sources actually use that word). --MASEM (t) 22:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Masem, the reliable sources I just provided do call it "harassment" — or to use even stronger language, "threats." Washington Post, Vox, The New Yorker, The Toronto Globe and Mail, Los Angeles Times, The Telegraph, Marketplace, etc. etc. etc. How many more do you want to see? Effectively all of the "non-VG, independent, 3rd party highly reliable sources" focus on the harassment issue as the central issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

as NorthBySouthBaranof says, to not include harassment as one of if not THE major issue that reliable sources discussing GamerGate focus on is an absurd WP:NPOV violation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying we should be careful in using the word harassment. It is certainly a word to use to describe events August 2014 onward, but before that point (specifically for this "Issues" section) we have to be more careful. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I feel like you're ignoring the reliable sources in an attempt to reach some sort of false "balance." You asked for what the "non-VG, independent 3rd party highly reliable sources" said, and I provided it. They say this is about harassment of women in video games and attempts by some gamers to reject and shut out the increasing diversity of voices in gaming. The New Yorker states that the fact that the criticism and harassment was focused exclusively on Quinn rather than Grayson "reveals the true nature of much of the criticism: a pretense to make further harassment of women in the industry permissible." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) before August "gamergate" was not even WP:NOTNEWS - the only thing that has brought any reliable coverage has been the harassment. and if you look at your calendar, we are past Aug 2014 - time and the event did not stop. we cover it as the sources cover it, not as we might wish the events had not unfolded or twisting the microscope so that we only see part of it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much this. The only reason most of these sites are covering it at all is because it's easy to paint and sell a narrative of a woman or women being harassed only because she/they're female when it's more complex than that. Like Masem said, "harassment" should be used and considered sparingly. Citation Needed | 23:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

yah, it is pretty easy to "to paint and sell a narrative of a woman or women being harassed only because she/they're female" when "a woman or women are being harassed only because she/they're female". its not more complicated than that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Both of you are missing the point. I'm not denying that there was harassment, period, from August onward. But we have sources that do describe that this situation didn't materialize out of nowhere, and these are the issues that are believed to be the lead-in to this. One of the issues, in the broadest sense, is the treatment of women (both the real people, and characters) and sexism in the industry. In some select cases there, such as when Anita put out her first Tropes vs Women video, that lead to harassment. But in the broader sense, it's sexism (which can include harassment). There is no denying that it happened before and has happened here, but when speaking of issues in general of what happened before, we need to avoid the word "harassment" unless it is specifically called out that way. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The only reason most of these sites are covering it at all is because it's easy to paint and sell a narrative of a woman or women being harassed only because she/they're female when it's more complex than that. Well, that's the narrative that the GamerGaters are attempting to present, anyway. Unfortunately, whatever motives you may believe the press has for presenting this information as it does, Wikipedia's policies stand: we say what the sources say, period. We are not going to 'avoid the word harassment.' The vast majority of strong, reliable sources present this as primarily an incident of mass-harassment and aggression, and if they mention the other 'issues' at all, mention them as incidental or spurious. We do not need to be any more 'careful' about the word 'harassment' than we do about any other aspect of this article; we have considerably better sources for its inclusion than we do for any of these 'issues.' We are not in the business of speculating about the ulterior motives of reliable sources here; when the overwhelming majority of high quality sources say the same thing, we have absolutely no place whitewashing the article by disregarding them.

Both of you are missing the point. I'm not denying that there was harassment, period, from August onward. But we have sources that do describe that this situation didn't materialize out of nowhere, and these are the issues that are believed to be the lead-in to this. Believed by who? Do we have reliable sources not just for the existence of these issues, but for the claim that they are the 'lead in' for this 'campaign,' and not, as no less a source than the New Yorker has stated, 'a pretense to make further harassment of women in the industry permissible?' Because without high quality sources that explicitly state that these issues are the 'lead in' to GamerGate, then all we'd be doing by including this section is ignoring the sources in favor of adding some original research. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, actually, several of the non-VG sources point this out (eg Vox's article); I know the rest are sourcable to high quality sources but I have to sort them out when writing this. (And irregardless, those that have following gaming news for the past several years see this easily, it's just a matter of sourcing it right). --MASEM (t) 02:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, again, you are missing the point about where the word "harassment" is going to be carefully used. In the situation post August 2014, it is undoubtedly harassment of several people, there's zero question about using that work with the sources we have. It is what happened before August that we can't just use "harassment" in the same way (as otherwise, GamerGate would have likely happened before that). Quinn and others did receive a large amount of negative criticism, and I think Anita even got death threaters earlier, but very few sources called that "harassment" in the way that that has happened recently. That's all I'm saying - before this point it was certainly an issue of sexism and treatment of women in the industry, but not necessarily harassment. --MASEM (t) 02:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

They link these specific issues to the development of GamerGate? And there was no harassment of women in video games prior to August? It sounds like you want us to give more credence to the GG claims that their movement is really all about some important issues in gaming than our reliable sources do. The harassment of women is a serious, ongoing and well cited issue. The new yorker states that Quinn's harassment has been going on for 18 months. You seem to be applying a much lower standard of evidence to pro-GamerGate information than you are to the much better cited information on harassment of women in the industry. And all in the name of correcting bias? -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's be clear. There's the harassment that we're talking about here which has an implied misogynist slants because the key people that have been harassed have been all women. Then there's the harassment pre-August which the IDGA and the FBI are looking at, across people of both genders eg [32]) It's harassment, but a different nature. I just want to make sure we don't imply - unless stated by sources like that for Quinn's past - that the harassment before August was all perceived to be driven by misogyny. --MASEM (t) 03:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that your framing of this section - which in essence restricts it to information with a decidedly pro-GamerGate bias - makes it unhelpful to include here. If you can cite this information as relevant to GamerGate, weave it in to the rest of the article. -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Er, no it's not. I'm trying to find the balance because it is very easy to load this article with well-sourced, anti-GG stuff (nobody looks favorably on those who harass others, even if it is only a subset of the larger group, which is the start of a number of problems), and this is why people are calling out the article as biased. Hence the need to try to find all middle grounds here. --MASEM (t) 03:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Being "unbiased" isn't about giving 'both sides' equal time; it's about fairly representing the information we can properly source. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

With the understanding that there is a systematic bias in the media due to this as well that one side (the pro-GG) is going to be scrapped across the rails because of the actions of a few. But you're getting lost in the details and go back to the bigger picture and why the need for this Issues section: as it reads, "suddenly" there was a huge backlash against game devs and journalists, which is absolutely not true. There are issues - sourced to above - that have been brewed for years and months and GamerGate is the flashpoint of all that. Is this necessarily saying their views are right? No. But it is providing the necessary context to understand the concept further. --MASEM (t) 04:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If reliable sources have a systematic bias (and that's if), Wikipedia has to have the same bias. Please get your views published somewhere before proposing their inclusion here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No, we actually are supposed to be aware of systematic biases and avoid pitfalls of this. For example, nearly every VG related source that would normally be an RS for other video game articles is immediately a problem here (simply because they are one party on the side of this debate) and we can't use them to a great degree. --MASEM (t) 04:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

With the understanding that there is a systematic bias in the media due to this What understanding is that? Are you seriously telling me you think The New Yorker and The Washington Post have compromised their integrity by allowing 'systemic bias' in articles about video games? That is quite simply not how Wikipedia operates. You don't get to take this quantity of reliable sources who are all presenting the information in the same way with the proverbial grain of salt because you think that they're hiding something. We are avoiding 'systemic bias' by preferring mainstream media sources over gaming-specific ones.

The harassment of women and misogynistic attitudes in the gaming industry and community are well cited and have been present for years. Based on our reliable sources, those 'issues' have been brewing for months and years as well, and this is a 'flashpoint' where many in the industry were finally forced to confront those issues head on. What you're doing here is whitewashing, plain and simple. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are supposed to be aware of systemic biases, but that doesn't mean we intentionally slant articles in the opposite direction from what reliable sources are reporting.

The reason a lot of sources proposed here aren't reliable isn't because they're "one party on the side of this debate" — sources are not rejected off-hand merely because they are biased. The reason many sources are rejected here is that this article does not center around what video game came out when, or whose hot new video game is more popular than the other. This article centers around extraordinarily sensitive allegations about the private lives of living persons, and our policy simply demands that we have different and more stringent standards for reliability and credibility when we deal with contentious and negative claims about living people.

In short, a source that we may find acceptable for reporting an opinion about a video game is not necessarily acceptable for reporting allegations involving the private lives of living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

What we have to be careful of is to present this in light of what is a more popular opinion external to WP that still believe this is a manufactured/campaigned strategy that is based on misogyny and everything else (about ethics, etc.) is a smoke screen. Nearly all the non-VG sources out in the last couple days are clear that it might have started like that but it has become a minority voice, and are striving to explain why this is happening. At the same time, no good RS is going to come out in any manner to say "we support harassing people" by writing the pro-GG side in a full positive light. So that's the bias we have to be aware of, the elephant in the room that no one wants to say out loud, directly, that harassment of any type to any person is bad. So the important part of these latest articles is how they have tried to understand, why are gamers angry, without trying give credence to the idea that harassment is an acceptable tool to express opinion. This doesn't mean we bury the fact that this all started because of harassment, in August, but that we cannot present the issue aligned with the popular external opinion that it is only a campaign of harassment. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If the good RSs are not 'coming out in favor' of GamerGate, we can't, either, no matter what you think their reasoning might be. If the sources 'ignore the elephant in the room,' we do it too. Verifiability, not Truth, remember? The SPAs and IPs I can understand, but you're an admin. I know you know this stuff. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying we write these in a manner to make it look like pro-GG'ers are right, but that, from these RS, they have framed the other arguments that the pro-GG side have presented as to why they have taken issue with Quinn, Sarkeesen, etc. These RS are not trying to justify if these are fair or not, just that these are arguments that they are presenting, and as such we should be too. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Then why all the digressions about the 'popular external opinion' and the 'elephant in the room' and the 'bias' that reliable sources have in not 'painting GG in a positive light?' The misogynistic tendencies of this campaign are still by far the best cited and creating a section devoted exclusively to presenting the 'issues' for which this is a 'flashpoint' and requiring that the well cited prior history of misogyny and harassment be excluded is completely inappropriate. If you can explicitly link your bullet points to GamerGate, please do provide the citations for that, but we're not excluding the ongoing harassment of women from any 'issues' section: Zoe Quinn was harassed for 18 months leading up to this debacle: this was a 'flashpoint' where her harassers found a way to pretend they had some moral high ground in harassing her. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

'Misogenystic tendecies are best cited'? Oh please. Those are only accusations and never got proven, and got plenty of disproval by the #notyourshield movement. I realize you want to call GamerGate misogenystic because it fits your world view best, but it's not. MicBenSte (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think perhaps you need to review what the reliable sources are saying on this issue. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

We've already been over this the past week. Someone who wishes to initiate an edit war isn't needed, tyvm. As you can see on the talk page, it's been a lenghthy discussion. Also, there are more and more RSes showing up covering both sides. Source 4 (Forbes/Erik Kain) was one of the first. Just check it out if you're open to convincing. MicBenSte (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The sources that exist primarily cover the harassment of figures like Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, and the 'corruption' issues are given minimal if any coverage. This article needs to reflect that fact. You may believe that #NotYourShield 'disproves' the well cited misogynistic aspects of the movement, but without sources to support that contention it isn't useful here. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain how you can read the Forbes article as somehow covering this without a harassment focus? Harassment is in or the instigating point for every section in that article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Kain covers both the harrasment as well as allegations of corruption within the gaming industry. MicBenSte (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't the question: the problem here is with the framing of a proposed section on the 'issues' of gamergate in a way that excludes the most prominent 'issue' of the entire affair. Yes, there are reliable sources that mention the issues that Masem wants to include, but they are never presented as the primary focus, so we can't do that here, either. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, there's a difference here I'm seeing. Harassment is a symptom, these issues are causes. That's the difference here. There is no denying harassment happened but these sources rationalize the above issues are why some have turned to harassment to address this. If we separate it like that, it makes a lot more sense. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, this may be completely off topic, but I would like to know what your basis is for believing that harassment is caused by indie games or distrust of journalism or the changing nature of journalism or the changing nature of "gamer" or really if there is anything that "causes" harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The reasons why gamers, upset with something (whether a politically-changed indie game, or favoritism by journalists, or a number of other issues) turn to harassment, is probably well described here [33] " Fans are, by definition, fanatical. That passion for the books they read, the movies and television they watch and the games they play can lead to amazing things from cosplay to tribute operas, from charities to art. But that fanaticism can also lead to a level of obsession that can trigger some very bad things like threats of death, kidnapping, torture, stalking and financial ruin." (and that was last year). --MASEM (t) 19:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Does that in any way disprove the more reliable source's coverage of this as a campaign motivated largely by sexism and hostility to women in gaming? It seems like you're trying to explain away this obvious hostility towards women as anything but sexism, using a single industry source and ignoring the many mainstream sources that contradict it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Has any source proven that this is driven by sexism and hostility? They've suggested that as a reason, certainly, but there is no source that proves this is the only reason for this. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Your're moving the goalposts. I'm talking about this proposed section, where you are attempting to present only the issues other than misogyny. That's inappropriate because, your one industry source aside, there is a substantial body of mainstream sources that treat this primarily as an issue of hostility towards women as the major issue of this movement. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No I'm not. Again, harassment is a symptom, it is not an initial cause for why this exploded. Yes, since then, the debate has considered the factor of harassment as a problem in the industry, but that harassment has to come from somewhere, and it is the dissastifaction in these areas above that are the sources for that. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Harassment is a 'symptom' of misogyny, which is well sourced as one of the 'issues' behind GamerGate. We're not going to ignore that. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

To say that "harassment is a symptom of misogyny" implies that the harassment in question is motivated by the gender of the target. This is not in any way established. In fact, there is a fair amount of evidence - in the form of what happened to Jack Thompson several years ago when he tried to critique the video game industry - that the situation for Anita Sarkeesian would not be any different if she were male. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The misogynistic nature of this harassment is well cited. I'm not merely saying "she's been harassed, she's a woman, therefor she's being harassed because she's a woman." We have multiple high quality sources that have noted that these people are being harassed because they are women. The history of hostility towards women in the gaming industry has gotten considerable coverage. There's really no way around it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Alleged details

The word "alleged" is necessary and proper in the discussion of Gjoni's accusations as a whole because many of his claims and accusations have not been verified or discussed by reliable sources. We do not need to use "alleged" when specifically discussing Quinn's relationship with Grayson because that has been independently verified and discussed in secondary sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Complaints regarding article neutrality

This article could be shown as the perfect example of Wikipedia's faults. The opening was now changed "centered on the harassment of women in the gaming industry" as if somehow all the sources said people were one day bored and decided to harass women.

In the response section "Anita Sarkeesian remarked regarding the misinformation campaign against her "One of the most radical things you can do is to actually believe women when they talk about their experiences," and noted that "The perpetrators do not see themselves as perpetrators at all... They see themselves as noble warriors."

What does this have to do AT ALL with the article at hand, the source doesn't cite anything at all about GamerGate, she didn't speak about it. Someone reading this article can seriously tell me as it is, it's neutral with a straight face?

It's really sad that respectable Wikipedia editors let people who campaign to make these sort of biased Wikipedia articles stay like thisLoganmac (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I've reworked the lead, as you are absolutely correct that the wording was poor and implied something else. --MASEM (t) 04:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Who do you think you're trying to kid here? Stop kowtowing to every Tom, Dick, and SPA that scurries across the talk page, please; changing "centered on the harassment of women in the gaming industry" to "sparked by the harassment of members of gaming industry" de-emphasizes the very real fact of misogynist harassment of women in the gaming industry, not watered down to just all people involved. Tarc (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not in any way established that "the very real fact of misogynist harassment of women in the gaming industry" has anything to do with the political objectives of gamergate. Literally the only reason that anyone in support of gamergate is talking about harassment, or feminism, is because they keep being forced to in order to address these sorts of accusations. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That's an extreme POV that is not supported by sources. There is certainly the original popular opinion but that has since changed over the last few days with several reliable sources going into other aspects of this like the ethics and the like. Again, we cannot take the stance that this was some orchestraed effort to drive a few people out of the game industry, as there is zero reliable sources for that. --MASEM (t) 04:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The reliable sources literally say in black and white that the issue involves sexism and harassment of women in the gaming industry. Please stop ignoring the reliable sources which have been posted here literally dozens of times. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No; the reliable sources talk about an issue they want to talk about, and then make tenuous connections back to the #gamergate tag. Sarkeesian's video came out before anyone was using the tag, and AFAICT, so did her initial round of complaints about harassment. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to believe whatever you wish. Asserting that all the reliable sources are biased is an interesting, yet wholly irrelevant, claim. By policy, Wikipedia articles are based on what the reliable sources say. If you think Wikipedia is intended to be an alternative media platform to allow you or others to challenge the mainstream viewpoints and statements expressed in reliable sources, then you fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia. We aren't Indymedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Whatever your thoughts about the state of the article, it is inappropriate to encourage drive-by complainers who post inflammatory accusations directed at editors on this page. I've toned down the header accordingly. Gamaliel (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There has been harassment on many non-woman (the journalists), the woman who have been harassed just yell the loudest and make a bigger fuss. There has been articles that harass/insult all males, accusations and using male as a slur/insult, the woman also have a lower standard of what is considered harassment. Yes Zoe and Anita have been subject to harassment but you are ignoring the hundreds of others who have been harassed by sjw's just for speaking their mind. Also have you checked out #notyourshield ? that shows that thousands of woman are on the side that is committing "misogynist harassment of women". Retartist (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

yeah, because no one in their right mind considers hundreds of death threats, rape threats, and the public posting of personal information "harassment". come on thats just what boys do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That is the EXACT words used by opponents of gamergate, also stop censoring my comments, if my comments can be quoted, the originals can remain Retartist (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

so.... everyone who believes that hundreds of death threats, rape threats, and the public posting of personal information constitute "harassment" is an "opponent" of gamergaters? they probably have a lot of "opponents". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thats not what i said, I was referring to your quote "come on thats just what boys do" (a tactic used as a false flag), I have admitted that zoe and anita have been harassed BUT not as much as they make out. They have claimed that the WHOLE movement is a harassment campaign; its not, just a small minority of the movement (and some false flags). You are also ignoring all the sjw's that advocate for "the death of all men" or the doxxing of a 10yr old. How about you guys go on 4chan to gain some perspective, like some research of your own to gain understanding of the gamergate view instead of the smear campaign that is published by the only sources we can use. Retartist (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please support your statements with reliable sources. Making sexist claims that "women just yell the loudest" and "have a lower standard of what is considered harassment" and using pejorative terms such as "sjw's" is not helping your case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Tu quoque: You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism. Also ad hominem. I did not say all woman "women just yell the loudest" and "have a lower standard of what is considered harassment" I was referring to the group who do. "pejorative terms such as "sjw's"" please I was abbreviating 'social justice warriors' hardly a "pejorative term" it just seems so because it is built that way in your head. Also i don't need RS to support my claims as this isn't some specific wording for the article, its my response to your texas sharpshooter fallacy. Retartist (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, you appear to have passed a freshman-level debate class. You don't, however, appear to have a great grasp of Wikipedia policy. In clarifying your statement, you have stated that you actually intended to make sexist personal attacks on two specific people, and I have redacted it per WP:BLP. Wikipedia talk pages are not a location for stating your personal opinions about living people. We aren't a forum or a debate class. If you don't have a reliable source for it, it doesn't belong on this talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I checked the edit history out of curiousity. The accusations you redacted very clearly referred to specific women, which is the only thing that gives you any justification to remove them under WP:BLP in the first place. Your description of them as "sexist" is objectively false, as they only made reference to the accused's gender in order to identify them, and did not in any way imply that their gender had anything to do with the claim. The clarification also does not state what you claim. Quit trying to represent things as sexist that aren't. This sort of nonsense is exactly why people are upset.

I'd also like to invite the general public to note which side of this argument is calmly pointing out logical fallacies, and which side is using rhetoric like "Congratulations, you appear to have passed a freshman-level debate class" and making reference to "Glenn Beck"-style conspiracies.70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to believe that making a clear reference to longstanding misogynistic tropes of women as "shrill" and "oversensitive" isn't sexist. Nobody else is obligated to believe it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

But no such reference was made. Quit misrepresenting other people and projecting your stereotypes onto them. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit: i have noticed you are also going for reviewer rights good luck :) BUT don't use it to push POV under the guise of BLP or as you put it " In particular, I am involved with monitoring and improving the Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and related articles, which have been variously protected and now placed under pending changes review due to repeated BLP violations that I have been active in removing" :) Retartist (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The leading is somehow now even worse, what source even says it arose "with the sexual harassment of Sarkeesian"? Can't we all just agree that most sources say it started, and this is the most neutral you could ever be, quite the contrary as the article is right now, with the posting of Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend of private information regarding personal relationships with influential people in the video game industry and that's it? Then the Forbes article states it gained traction after DMCA takedowns took place and censorship on reddit, but I seriously doubt that will ever be included in this article. Loganmac (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Social Justice Warriors

Do we really need to spend any words on what this term means? I don't think the following adds anything to the article:

"The pejorative[2][11] term "social justice warriors" has been used to refer to developers and journalists who are allegedly "interested more in the issues of representation and sociocultural meaning in games and game development, than the content itself", as described by The Guardian's Keith Stuart.[6] Writing in Paste, Garrett Martin said "The common use of the inexplicable epithet “Social Justice Warrior”, a sure sign of anti-equality intent, clearly marked this as a politically retrograde attack against minorities and their supporters."[12]"

14.200.20.112 (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to mention the term, then yes, we do need to explain what it means and its pejorative nature. However, I don't really know how much it adds to the article; I would be fine with just taking that entire section out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a definition for a term not used anywhere else in the article. I'm going to edit it out. 14.200.20.112 (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Right - it was initially inserted because another editor had inserted the term "social justice warriors" without explaining it. If we can agree not to use the term in the article, we don't need a lengthy explanation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we actually should have this term, despite the meaning of it. It is a negative term, yes, but it is used in many RSs and thus for that reason we should explain it to a small degree as to help editors researching the topic on their own to know what it means. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done

The complete article needs to mention the following:
- TFYC. This especially is a big sucking hole in the current article.
- Jenn Frank's resigation from The Guardian
- The 'gamers are dead' articles written by multiple outlets in 48 hours
- the petition to game devs
- censorship / Streisand effect
- Patreon usage/controversy over conflict of interest, leading to Kotaku and Polygon banning Patreon usage by its staff - Defy Media, who owns The Escapist, changing their ethics guideline to disallow any writers donating to a Patreon account to write about that person.

Also, somebody make a timeline. 14.200.20.112 (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

By 'somebody' I mean 'somebody other than myself, also not necessarily right away.' But here's some sources for the 3rd point:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/01/the-gamer-is-dead-long-live-the-gamer/
http://kotaku.com/we-might-be-witnessing-the-death-of-an-identity-1628203079
Opinions aside, they can be used as factual sources to say that 'gamer are dead' articles were in fact written.
Slate has a more comprehensive list: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/09/gamergate_explodes_gaming_journalists_declare_the_gamers_are_over_but_they.html14.200.20.112 (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Digitimes claims perception of censorship leading to Streisand effect. That should be in there somewhere also. http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140906VL200.html?chid=8 14.200.20.112 (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

On TFYC: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/.14.200.20.112 (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Has it been done?BerserkerBen (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't need a timeline - we are not going to go down to try to document all the allegations and accusations, as that way lies way too much BLP and unsourcable events. Trying to keep this more high level so that we don't take a bias or break BLP. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Change to 'Background' needed - John Bain cited as coming to Quinn's defense - wrong citation

In Background, the following is written down:

"A number of commentators within and outside the games industry denounced the attack on Quinn as misogynistic and unfounded.[4][11] Quinn and her family were subsequently targeted by a campaign of harassment,[11][12] as were people who had come to her defense, such as internet commentator John Bain"

While Bain was negative towards the attacks on Quinn, he spoke out against the general accusations of misogeny towards gamers by members of the press and gaming industry. In return, he got called 'a gross nerd' by Phil Fish, got DMCA'ed for one of his videos.. (See source link 4, http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/) As for the rest - besides further expanding sources, the article atm, while having an subtle bias towards Quinn&co, seems relative fine atm.MicBenSte (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It is certainly not true (or at least, misleading) to say that John Bain came to Quinn's defense. The article should mention the DCMA somewhere, too, perhaps in a section about censorship (see above sources). Somebody other than me should write it, of course. 14.200.20.112 (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

New header, please let's discuss this

I took the bold idea of trying to rework the leading. I included a mention to harassment in the gamer community which was missing, left the misogyny aspect present in most sources and state the origin of the whole controversy as the blog post of Quinn's former boyfriend, as stated in the background section, backed by the Forbes source this http://www.cinemablend.com/games/GamerGate-Everyone-Hates-Each-Other-I-Really-Tired-67039.html and this http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/12/with-gamergate-the-video-game-industrys-growing-pains-go-viral/ "ever since an ex-boyfriend wrote a blog post implying that she had..." I'm sure there are more sources that back the statement that the blog post started the whole thing

"#GamerGate refers to a 2014 video game controversy that arose after a former boyfriend of indie game developer Zoe Quinn, posted details on her personal relationships with individuals involved in the video game industry. The controversy eventually led to discussions on journalistic ethics of video game journalism, as well as misogyny and harassment in the gamer community."

If you want to change anything let me know, I don't want to include it yet since it'll be reverted by the owners, keep in mind I included every aspect on the subject in a concise way, without going into details on Quinn's personal life Loganmac (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

First sentence. What's the difference between harassment and a harassment campaign? Are we alleging organization? Premeditation? Of the five articles cited, only the first mentioned the word 'campaign' in the harassment context. 14.200.20.112 (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the header again. There's the issue of harassment, but we cannot accurately state what was being claimed, nor do we need to in the header at this time. (as we jump right into what happened) --MASEM (t) 13:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Defining Harassment

Since the topic of "harassment" is a common thread in GamerGate, especially from one particular side, I think it's important to nail down a solid definition of harassment. For example, in the first sentence, it currently states that the incident was kicked-off by "Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend harassing her". Eron released a blog post detailing a series of abuses and disclosing them to the public. Does this qualify as harassment? Or airing of grievances? What about other claims of harassment that have occurred over the course of the campaign? What's the line? How about hostile twitter messages that fall short of outright threats? There needs to be a clear definition for "harassment" moving forward, and I personally think it needs to be more rigorous and citeable than someone calling something else directed at them harassment. 173.51.120.127 (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

We do need to be clear - this was what I was trying to say above - that today went people say "harassment" in headlines they usually implicitly imply of the sexual harassment variety, and not the type of harassment (floods of negative messages, etc.) that some of the cases reported are. Hence a word to use judiciously. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

calling someone a cunt, making disgusting sexual innuendos and sending naked pictures IS sexual harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. But there was the non-sexual type that has happened in relationship to the issues here - eg the COD developers being "harassed" last year when they rebalanced weapons in that. They got slammed with complaints including their own share of death threats, but that's not the sexual type of harassment (as the person targetted was a guy). --MASEM (t) 19:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Escapist as a Reliable Source

We need an organized discussion on the validity of the Escapist and Kotaku as reliable sources.

This is the wrong approach: Kotaku and Escapists are normally reliable sources, but we have to be aware that in this specific case because they are part of the VG industry they will have an implied bias, so we have to consider their articles on a case-by-case basis for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right. However, I think Kotaku has the specific distinction of being a major target, so though I think denying Nathan Grayson's relationship as well as changing their policies are solid pieces of evidence, a lot of what they say should be taken with a grain of salt. The Escapist, however, doesn't seem to be a target and they published an anti-GG video as well as things that might be seen as pro GG (though I would consider them mostly neutral.) EvilConker (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Can someone explain why this line is included?

"Anita Sarkeesian, speaking in public for the first time (at the XOXO Festival in Portland, Oregon) since she fled her home, remarked regarding the misinformation campaign against her "One of the most radical things you can do is to actually believe women when they talk about their experiences," and noted that "The perpetrators do not see themselves as perpetrators at all... They see themselves as noble warriors." "

I really don't get what that has to do with anything on GamerGate, the source specified doesn't mention GamerGate, it doesn't mention video games at all. I realize talking about Anita Sarkeesian attracts a swarm of people on Wikipedia, and I tried deleting, justifying but got reverted within, aproximately 30 seconds, someone didn't even try and justify So any reasons? Loganmac (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Because this article falls under the Sexual harassment in video gaming umbrella, of which Sarkeesian kinda knows or thing or two, having been on the receiving end of abuse similar to Quinn's. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and that's why it's mentioned that she was one of the targeted persons, but I have problems with that source in particular since it has nothing to do with the subject. Her saying that people should believe her adds nothing of value in my opinion Loganmac (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It has much to do with the subject, given that GamerGate has evolved into an omnibus term which covers the harassment, the misinformation campaign, even on-line identify theft. So one of the targets is too close to the subject? Quite the conundrum, but we'll try to give it WP:DUE weight. Heck, virtually every party involved is too close to the subject... It's the nature of the beast. kencf0618 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm worried that a she is one of the targets, her opinion is, of course, biased. If someone else that has not been involved made that comment, that would be different. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph is relevant because of the accusation that she and other women were making up the threats against them, and thus her words dismissing the accusation explain her point of view. I've updated the article to clarify what her words are about. Diego (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

False positive

It's not the job of the Cluebot to revert contributions that are not vandalism, so I did the proper thing - revert the bot and notify it as a false positive. I was restoring some of the content removed but found an edit conflict with Tarc's revert. Full reversals of an editor's contributions are not helpful, and being new doesn't make oneself wrong; the best course of action is to analyze what particular changes have been made, and revert (or correct!) those that are not improvements. Diego (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The edit was vandalism. Large-scale unexplained content removal with no discussion on the talk page pretty much qualifies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You have an imperfect understanding of policy; bold edits with the intent to improve the article are explicitly not vandalism, and encouraged by the guidelines. One can disagree with them and request more careful editing through WP:BRD, but qualifying them as vandalism is a failure to assume good faith. In any case, my point was that it's not the job of an automated bot to second-guess edits made by a human with a constructive intent; there's enough noise as is without the bots rebelling against their owners. Diego (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This topic area is being inundated with puppets of both meat & sock variety), SPAs, trolls, impersonators, and similar malcontents. When a user creates an account at 10:34, then makes their first and thus far only edit at 10:38, where said edit deletes over 3k of text, that is suspicious by any reasonable stretch of one's imagination. The edit also removed almost all of the misogyny discussion, watering the article down to nothing but one poorly-sourced side. That ain't gonna fly. Tarc (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Okay. I'm noticing edit-warring again. People, we either sort this out or the article should go away. We *had* an balanced article, going the full-misogeny route again or removing that isn't the way to go! MicBenSte (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The "full misogyny" route is the route supported by reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The first earlier group of sources claim that yes. The later group of sources say while misogeny originally was part of it, the movement has outgrown it while there are still shards left of it through some users.MicBenSte (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Which newer sources are these? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Forbes, Al Jazeera and others. Also, just noticed that http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201409032102-0024126 mentions death threaths against Milo Yiannopoulos, an right-wing conservatist in the UK who involved himself with #GamerGate. One of the few RS reports of threaths against 'pro-Gamergate'.MicBenSte (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that those are significantly older sources than the Washington Post, New Yorker, Marketplace, Toronto Globe and Mail, etc. articles that we have now, right? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I also realize that those are mass-media just copying&pasting the most of the gaming press, so it's just more of the same. I notice it in multiple countries, and I notice also that the mass media have done zero research on it and just copied&pasted most of what IGN and others claimed, with some changes to make it look like unique.MicBenSte (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

And your assertion that the Forbes article shows the coverage is not about harassment is pretty faulty. Every section in that article includes harassment or the previous section leading into it specifically identifies the new subject as having been initiated by/because of harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. You're entitled to that opinion. That doesn't make the sources any less reliable or authoritative.

When your argument is reduced to "all the mainstream sources are biased except the ones I like," it may be time to reconsider your position. Just a thought. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It's the same as you, TRPoD and that lady only going for the harrassment/'misogendry' angle as would be going solely for the corruption angle. Paying only attention to one of both is both WP:UNDUE, certainly since more RS are getting in past week, with the exception of the mass media, who take an broad approach to the conflict. I'm off for now, I've got better things to do then arguing with broker records... MicBenSte (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

the "mass media" majority view IS what we cover. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

We have to be aware that in the more recent articles, the mass media has tried to give weight to the pro GG side of this, thus meaning we should too. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be great if you'd link the sources you say support your arguments. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) People keep making this claim and not being able to provide any sources to back it up. the forbes article uses "harass" 8 times, "attack"= 1 "misogyny"= 5. you will need to actually provide some sources that dont focus on the harassment if you want people to take you seriously. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The point is not that they aren't speaking about the harassment and misogynm, but that in addition they are also trying to explain more rationale reasons. That's in all the recent articles. They aren't burying the harassment, but they aren't saying it's only harassment. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Eg source WA Post article (which does a fair amount time about the ongoing harassment): eg "Regardless of who started it, the hashtag’s caught on. Some users have latched on to #GamerGate as a way to troll gaming’s “social justice warrior” critics, while others have taken it as an opportunity to look at games media.". That refer's then to Vox's piece and the Guardian piece. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

“ first paragraph: Rape threats. A hacking attempt on her Web site. The online publication of personal information, including her phone number and home address. Countless comments on her Tumblr calling her a “slut” and worse, including one that read: “Are you reading this? Of course you are. I will kill you. ”

yep, they are not focused on the harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course we have to mention the harassment. There's no question. But then they delve into other aspects of this. I never said they weren't focused on the harassment, but they also focused on other aspects. So we cover both parts. Period. It's very simple. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me put this another way: I feel there's a few editors that want us to give zero weight to the pro GG side because sexual harassment and death threats are never justified actions (irregardless of the target or the reason). I agree with that sentiment, but as a WP editor I have to step back and recognize that reliable sourcing have since become clear that GG cannot be proven only as a campaign to promote this, and there are more voices that have not engaged in harassment/misogynmy, and that there are valid reasons they are frusterated with the industry today. As such we have to present the harassment issues (there is no attempt to wipe these out of the article), but we also now have to present that other side that the RS have reported on , on issues of journalistic ethics and the like. We cannot pretend that these opinions don't exist, that's a bias that the sources cannot support any more. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Its a myth that the article does now (or has ever) "ignored" them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The other issue, which has been mentioned by a number of reliable sources, is that it's never been clear exactly what #GamerGate wants. There was one source that even made explicit reference to it and the Occupy movement, discussing them both in the context of the difficulty of developing clear goals and aims in an entirely-decentralized movement.

As several sources have noted (and I agree with them), there is no doubt that there are honest concerns and honest people involved in it. But they allowed their cause to be hitched to a very questionable horse that's riven with misogynistic implications (not the least of which is slut-shaming) and, through lack of any sort of clear messaging and leadership, have been drowned out by an "army of trolls spewing bile" that have permanently tainted the very idea. It's perhaps unfortunate, but #GamerGate is now permanently associated with a campaign of misogynistic harassment and one can't just wish that history away. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, there no way we can ignore the harassment and sexism and misogyny issues. That has to be documented because that is what brought GG to the broad media attention. What we cannot hide is you state the "honest concerns" that have emerged. We cannot state if these only bore out when claims that GG was manufactured as a reactionary measure, or if they really did exist and were simply overwhelmed by the volume of the harassment claims and weren't heard until the situation calmed down. But they exist, and are documents, so we can cover them. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Changes in corporate policies have been made, and the #GamerGate hashtag on Twitter is as fervid as ever, but the intense misogyny has swamped everything else. Not the first time a crisis has developed beyond its proximate cause. kencf0618 (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"The intense misogyny has swamped everything else"? Have you tried actually looking at the feed for the hashtag? Where's the "swamp" of "intense misogyny"? Absolutely absurd. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

For example... why hasn't Nathan Grayson been discussed extensively by the movement? If there was a conflict of interest, he is at least as guilty of wrongdoing as Zoe Quinn, and he is the journalist who is supposed to uphold ethical standards. But no, #GamerGate has hardly bothered to mention Grayson, let alone unleash a torrent of harassment at him. The entire focus became misogynistic attacks on Quinn and her sex life, right down to the incredibly-juvenile "fiveguysburgersandfries" garbage. If your movement is not about slut-shaming, it's probably a good idea not to title your IRC channels with references to a woman's sex life. The double standard and specific targeting of a woman is not difficult to observe, and the reliable sources did not fail to observe it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Grayson has been discussed extensively by the movement. So have many other figures in gaming journalism. There are names involved that I'd never heard of before this broke out, that I'm intimately familiar with now. As for "misogynistic attacks on Quinn" being "the entire focus" of #gamergate, I refute you thus. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You have not "refuted" anything. You would need reliable sources talking about how #GamerGaters have equally focus on the men involved in ethical bias, been the subject of vicious harassment rather than the current topic of all of the reliable sources : the harassment of women and feminists. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Quinn's opponents

As per this reliable source, the allegations came from "Quinn's opponents." This isn't the most specific term, but it is certainly more specific than not even attempting to qualify who made the allegations; without specifying who made them, they would be effectively wholly anonymous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

But isn't that sort of a circular definition? The source has labeled them as opponents because they had made those allegations. What new information is gained by noting that those who made opposing allegations are opponents? Diego (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the source states that it began with people who had previously been opposed to Quinn because of the content and design of her game, who then "seized on" the allegations to further their claims.

In context: Quinn’s harassers didn’t like that she and other “social justice warriors” — a derogatory term for people in the video-game industry who use the medium to talk about political issues — were challenging tradition with products such as “Depression Quest.” Games were meant to be entertainment, not tools to further a political agenda. And when Gjoni published his tirade, Quinn’s opponents seized on her alleged relationship with the writer as evidence the video-game media favored her and other liberal game developers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Almost nobody knew about her before the allegations were published. Too, this is one source among many; this would give it undue weight, wouldn't it? Willhesucceed (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Getting a little better and neutral

As it is now it's pretty neutral (hope it doesn't get completely changed 24 hours from now). Only problem I got is the leading. The header is supposed to give a summarized version of the matter at hand. Currently it states

1. GamerGate refers to a 2014 video game controversy arising from allegations around game developer Zoe Quinn, leading to debates involving issues of sexism, misogyny and harassment in the gamer community as well as conflicts of interest between journalists and developer.

Someone who wanted to know about the subject wouldn't have any idea what the article is about by reading that. So as I proposed above, I want to change it to this

#GamerGate refers to a 2014 video game controversy that arose after a former boyfriend of indie game developer Zoe Quinn, posted details on her personal relationships with individuals involved in the video game industry. The controversy eventually led to discussions on journalistic ethics of video game journalism, between journalists and developer, as well as misogyny and harassment in the gamer community.

It states the origin of the whole thing (a blog post), why is Zoe Quinn controversial (involvement with people in the game industry), and what it came of it (discussions of game ethics, misogyny, and harassment). It's all still there, but a little more expanded to give a concise summary Loganmac (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No. The controversy is precisely over the fact that the allegations are wrapped up in misogyny. You're attempting to bury that part of it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof your comments so far have been nothing but blatant attacks

The controversy comes from the GG side, WHY does this hashtag exist? As you can see, Quinn hasn't been mentioned in weeks.

Yes she's the origin, but she's the spark NOT the fire. If I am a user on this site I expect to see 'why are all the gamers angry' and the sooner we show that, the better this article is. EvilConker (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Masem, nice work on the rewrite — I support your version, I think it's fine to be clearer about the allegations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I did a bit more, as EvilConker has a point, that this was a spark of long-standing issues (this concept borrowed from the Forbes article), so that it is aware this didn't suddenly magically happen overnight. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There still isn't mention of the journalism aspect in the leading, it says "as well as conflicts of interest between video game journalists and developers" someone that reads the article for the first time wouldn't even get why would there be conflict of interest, there has to be a mention that her relationships involved people in the industry, "allegations of professional impropriety by developer Zoe Quinn" doesn't say much. And of course NorthBySouthBaranof will agree with you, I wonder why Stradivarius hasn't come around over here yet Loganmac (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, "Professional impropriety" implies a conflict of interest, but I can see with whom making it clear it was with a journalist, so that that latter statement makes sense. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, leading seems neutral and informative now Loganmac (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It is looking a lot better. In a way the lede is trying to concisely summarize an especially messy encounter battle. There are a lot of agendas and moving parts involved! kencf0618 (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

none of the reliable sources have the focus as the allegations against Quinn. the focus is on the harassment and the other stuff. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

But they identify her case as the spark, that's important. We dont' have to analyze the specific allegations beyond pointing to Kotaku's statement "it didn't happen" but by that point, the ball had started rolling. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

And to add - at some point the lead will be expanded to reflect the contents of the article better, but we have no good idea of the full final state it might end up as to be able to do that. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverted back to TheRedPenOfDoom's last edit. Masem, you may be far more civil than the SPAs that show up here, but your POV-pushing is a carbon copy. We're not moving the article away from the fact that misogyny and harassment are the central aspect of the topic. Tarc (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep this article as neutral as possible. And the only reason I reverted was because the change removed Quinn's name (who, while may no longer be central to the issue, is still in name tied to the event) and rewrote the accusation aspect poorly. I simply flipped the statement around so that the misogynm/harassment issue is first, but without removing Quinn's name. I have no problem putting the emphasis on the misogynmy point first. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

per WP:BLP you are not going to frame this as about Quinn, and particularly false allegations made against her. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

especially when you are arguing on and on and on on this very page about how it is NOT about harassment but about "gamer identity" and "transparency in journalism" and "new media". Quinns entire roll in this is victim of harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not at all framing this about Quinn, nor is it a BLP issue. Whether you like it or not, her name is synonymous with GamerGate, only because it started the whole thing. Yes, she is no longer the focus of the issues, but it is the accusations against her that set off harassment and everything else. Is she a victim? Sure, but there zero reason to hide the fact that it all started with her. Additionally, your new text is extremely biased as well. The previous langauge was the right balance to introduce the situation. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

However, I will recognize that it might be okay to leave her name out for now from the lead, so I've reworked the original language to reflect this as well as to be clear the accusations were proven false). Depending how this article grows - for example if we find that a lead of 2-3 paragraphs is needed, we probably need to reintroduce her name in the lead, but leaving out now is fine. However I will point out it is not a BLP issue - there's no doubt about her involvement here (even as the victim). --MASEM (t) 22:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

false allegations about sleeping around and professional misconduct ARE ABSOLUTELY BLP concerns. How could you possibly not recognize that????? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

In the sense that they were made and discredited across the board in numerous sources means that the existence of those claims are not contentious, and thus the BLP issue is no longer there. If all we had were the ex's claims and no sources to counter that, then including them would be a BLP issue, no question. That's why many of the other issues and accusations that have been brought up we shouldn't even be touching because they are unfounded BLP claims. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That is also completely inappropriate interpretation. Even widely publicized issues about a living person MUST be handled with discretion and appropriately, such as not hiding as parenthetical afterthoughts the known fact that allegations are in fact false. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, and we can clearly say that the accusations were proven false, so there is no need for further discretion about her name in conjunction to GamerGate. Sourcing shows Quinn's name in nearly every recent article discussing the situation as a whole, all clearly establishing that the accusations were false and that the situation all began with her. Further, placing something that wasn't mentioned before in parans is not hiding the fact. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

In a BLP we present false accusations as false accusations. any pretense of "oh later we identify that they are false over there in that parenthetical comment and so we are OK" is purely outside the scope of what the clear intent of BLP means and what it explicitly says. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind: not all of the ex's accusations have not been shown false - only those that relate to Grayson and Kotaku. We are not going to touch the other ones because that is BLP, but we absolute should make sure that the ones we know were false are now established to be false. But it is not BLP to report that there were allegations made against Quinn (but not what those allegations were without confirmation either way) in light of Quinn's role in the larger picture here. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I dont think your case is any better with : "BLP doesnt count for proven false allegations of professional impropriety and unproven allegations about intimate personal relationships."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Not, it's not; this fits with BLP. Remember that the factual information is effectively "Quinn's ex listed several accusations about her with a writer from Kotaku; Kotaku debunked these accusations towards Quinn.". There is nothing contentious about that statement given what we have in the sources, what Kotaku and Quinn have stated, and we are not giving any more exacting details and reporting it at a level that other sources. It would be different if we attempted to list out all the other accusations that Quinn's ex gave that have not been commented on by others (or even if they were but not given any weight or details), because this is an undeterminable statement about Quinn and thus would be highly contentious. Basically the BLP issue line has been crossed for us because of how much detailed coverage this has gotten in highly reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 06:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted here that the allegations made by Gjoni don't involve Depression Quest. My source for this is the allegations themselves, where he made no mention of DQ the first time around, and later in an edit explicitly clarified that he does not think any kind of "sex for favours" arrangement was present. The accusations "debunked by Kotaku" were not Gjoni's. As the article currently says, "This led to allegations from Quinn's opponents that the relationship had resulted in favorable media coverage." Let's please not lose sight of that. Accordingly, "the ex's allegations that relate to Grayson and Kotaku" have not been shown false - since the only allegations he made against Grayson were admitted, and the only allegation he made about Kotaku is that Grayson works there, which is also not in dispute. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Your revisions of the article are constantly enforcing that the attacks on Quinn and Sarkeesian are all there are to say about the event, though Tarc.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Additionally [34] this version of the lede is incredibly biased. I don't care if the actions the ex did were deplorable and immoral, the lead is not to call him out on that. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

per the sources you have been identifying as the "recent ones" that we should model our article on it is the exboyfriend's post sparked a virulent campaign and " Within days it 9the exboyfriend's post) had taken the internet by storm," if you are going to the crux , the crux is the disgruntled ex. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Using the language like "tirad" (sourced to the Wapost) is fine in the body of the article where we go into details of the ex's statements, but putting language like that in the lead biases this article from the start. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

there is no "bias" in presenting the material as the mainstream reliable sources cover it. and this is how the source that you yourself proclaimed we must base our article on because it reflects the most recent coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You are not reading what I said. Yes, one source comments on the ex's accusations as a tirad and that's fine to mention in the body, but unlike the idea of the whole thing sparking the incident (which is a though repeated throughout many sources), it's only described in one, so as it is a biased term, it should not be in the lead. --MASEM (t) 00:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

one as a "tirade", one as "spiteful blog post, one as the invasion of a developer's privacy by her ex-boyfriend or maybe " a dirty-laundry double load of drama" or a " spiteful attack " . I could go on, but "tirade" seems appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that multiple RSs made the same subjective judgment doesn't make that judgment no longer subjective. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

When did Quinn's ex make "false allegations of professional impropriety"? As far as I'm aware, he made allegations of personal impropriety, but never made any professional allegations except, possibly, for one (which was never confirmed, so I'm unwilling to repeat it here). The claims of professional impropriety were made later, as a result of people reading her ex's claims. I'll re-read his post to confirm, but I think the timeline is a bit out here. - 00:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We have several sources that state the ex claiming or at least implying professional impropriety (eg [35] which then was picked up by Quinn's opponents. --MASEM (t) 06:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Other sources, AFAICT, don't say that. The source you gave as an example is from "an intern with the Style section" of the Washington Post, so it ought not carry the full weight that the publication normally does. It links directly to the allegations, which objectively don't make those claims. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Implying is a long way from making direct allegations. He did imply that there may have been an issue with one of the people, but that person wasn't Grayson - he didn't imply or state that there was any professional impropriety with Grayson, and we also have sources which highlight that. Given that the core issue with GamerGate is to do with questions about journalistic integrity, we need to keep the personal and professional allegations separate, as they were made by different people, otherwise it may be misleading. - 08:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:WRONGVERSION

I thought the consensus was to leave the page as it was, not to change it for a few weeks (except obvious blp)? The page has changed for the worse, becoming more skewed towards the POV of the media and the sjw's. Can't we revert it to the old version that was only a little biased not this one that is heavily biased? Retartist (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This version is much less biased than the version that was protected as it tries to help frame the side of the pro-GG better. --MASEM (t) 02:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop 'Framing' the Article

I have noticed over the past few hours that all edits that have been made to neutralize the article have been changed back.

In addition, there seems to be an uncomfortable use of the word 'tirade' and a focus on things unrelated to how GamerGate came to be.

I think, and it seems so, that the release of Depression Quest and Quinn's actions BEFORE August are not relevant except for the following: WizardChan allegations, TFYC conduct, and Eron Goji's post, and possibly in extension GAME_JAM as it's the article in question. These three (four) have made a very noticeable impact in the progress of GamerGate.

I don't think it's reasonable to think that the harassment she received before has anything to do with the criticism (and harassment) she's receiving now. It's an entirely different beast and she could have made any game and the results would have been the same with these allegations: I repeat, this is not about Zoe Quinn. She is the spark, not the fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilConker (talk • contribs) 02:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The details of what happened in the past with Quinn and the harassment she got before this due to releasing DQ is very important to set up why the accusations were there, and then to set up some of the aspects of the issues the pro GG side have. --MASEM (t) 02:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Some background has to be set considering this all precipitated around the time the game was green lit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Correlation does not imply causation, Also, DQ was greenlit in January. That's 6 months of separation. DQ is irrelevant. EvilConker (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

DQ's criticism put her name on the map as a target; and the harassment from DQ continued throughout the greenlight process onward. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hashtag

Due to the large number of sources in the article treating this as a hashtag, I had added {{correct title}} to the lede, but it was removed once by Masem citing commonality as it not being a hashtag (contradicting sources) and by PigArcher citing a lack of consistency in Wikipedia naming conventions. Neither of these are the case. "#GamerGate" as a hashtag is in use in several of the sources, and the article itself refers to it existing as a hashtag before the whole incident was given the name.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the hashtag seems to be in common use as the name so I think this makes sense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Both the non-hash and hashtag have about an equal number of hits on Google News. As such, it would be better to consider both: "GamerGate (often referred by the hashtag #GamerGate)...". Since we can't move the article to "#gamergate" because of the technical limitation, this works out fairly to cover both. --MASEM (t) 06:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Some comments on neutrality

I've read some of the reliable sources and have some observations.

1. This isn't about broad issues of misogyny or harassment in gaming. It's about about a relationship that went south. None of the many involved characters are candidates for broad accusations or summations. Exploring the various titillating aspects of Zoe's relationships or whether they cross journalism or employer boundaries is simply below the bar of notability and cross privacy boundaries.
2. It is not acceptable to broadly characterize Zoe's treatment as misogynist or harassing. Not because it isn't, but because the privacy boundaries and the BLP boundaries that must be crossed are clear policy violations.
3. None of this is notable. This should be deleted or stubbed. It cannot be fairly presented if all perspectives can't be explored and all perspectives can't be explored because, quite frankly, they aren't notable public figures. There is no reason to presume/assume/speculate/publish a particular account from a particular POV as if it has more validity that any other. It would be easy to swap the gender roles of bf/gf and make the gf the blogger and the bf the one accused of cheating and the immediate problem with the opening paragraph is clear: there is no way to characterize either side as "false" or a "tirade' any more than it is acceptable to speculate on motivation. The article should be stubbed because, quite frankly, it's not notable enough to overcome the privacy considerations and ultimately all accounts of the relationship are primary sources.
4. Just because something exists on the internet doesn't mean WP needs to publish it. Users won't find the the stolen actress photos on WP. Not because it's illegal to host or it's not notable enough but because it's wrong.

Stub this article, remove BLP violating accusations of misogyny, tirade, cheating, false, lying, etc, and leave it bare without taking a side in what is basically a relationship dispute. The short answer is we are not in a position to know any of it because ultimately there are only primary sources and the advocates for those primary sources. --DHeyward (talk) 06:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If you think it should be deleted, the AFD is still going on. As to all your other points, we are going with what the secondary indepenent non-VG sources say - that this is harassment and misogyny by a subset of gamers towards a few noted people. --MASEM (t) 06:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really. That's a POV pushed by supporters of that POV. There are no secondary sources unless you think relationships have secondary sources. Gender is easily reversed in this type of scenario and it is incorrect that one side is "right" and can identify the other with pejorative terms. It's a BLP violation at minimum to dismiss one side of a two sided account that has no objective view. There are other sources that support the other side but they are no more "secondary" than the ones presented. --DHeyward (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:PSTS, sourcing like the New Yorker, the Telegraph, the Independent, and the Washington Post are all secondary sources for our purposes; that have evaluated the situation and made some analysis on it. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Masem, I have to disagree with you there. Only take a look at the contents of those secondary sources, and you'll note it mostly pushes one POV, while paying just the minimal note of the other POV. The analysis is almost not there.MicBenSte (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources can have a POV, that doesn't limited them fro being secondary sources. And if the mainstream media is only focusing on one side, we are supposed to reflect that, though we (myself and others) have tried to find the other points to balance this out better. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

TFYC are radical feminists??

How are The Fine Young Capitalists "radical"? Is there a source for this? Have they done literally anything other than attempt to fund a charity for female gamers? I'm pretty sure the answer to both of those is "no." This is weasel wording at its finest.

This article needs to be deleted. This is an ongoing event, with strong biases on all sides. It has become very apparent that we are not going to arrive at a neutral article like this.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.160.234.90 (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Per [36] : "So we have TFYC, a self-described “radical feminist”..." and [37] "As a radical feminist group..." (their words). --MASEM (t) 07:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If they have applied the terminology to themselves, and we don't have any reliable source which disputes that classification, I see no valid reason for removing that self-identification. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

TFYC has declared themselves so on their site.MicBenSte (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Radical feminism is a form of feminism. "Radical" is not a weasel word.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC

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

---

What should be done when most of the RS (media) support their own side of the debate in a debate that is RS (media) vs the public? Retartist (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We use that media carefully and instead make sure to use independent sources to frame the overall story (as we have done by using stories from Forbes, WA Post, Telegraph, Independent, New Yorker, LA Times, etc.). --MASEM (t) 07:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It really depends on your unsupported presumption that this is "the media" versus "the public." There's no evidence that 99% of "the public" cares about the issue (I'm pretty sure Gallup's never polled it) and there is plenty of evidence that a significant number of people outside "the media" share the view of GamerGate that you ascribe solely to "the media." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Stub it with extreme prejudice. Remove all pejorative words like cheating, misogynist, unethical, harassment, etc. There are no winners nor moral high ground in this issue. Presuming there is turns NPOV on its head as this is basically a relationship dispute. There are no credible sources except primary and those unreliable sources that would publish primary source accounts as objective truth. This violates core WP principles. --DHeyward (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Seconded. It's a NPOV nightmare to begin with. Citation Needed | 12:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• This is not an issue. It's not like "the media" is some cabal, complete with secret handshakes and passwords. And the only thing "the public" agrees on are the positive effects of breathing, though I'm not entirely convinced of that. We already have a wide variety of viewpoints from reliable sources, enough to show that we don't need to worry about it. Woodroar (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC).
• Neutrality is a very important consideration and there is certainly a risk of the "walled garden" effect with media sources feeding off each other and re-reporting the same things over and over. The best way to counteract this is to emphasize diversity of sources. "The media" is not monolithic. This issue has received international coverage. Skimming through Google News I see pieces written in French, Spanish, Dutch, German, Portuguese, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Czech, Norwegian, Russian, Swedish, Croatian, and Italian. From the English sources I immediately see American, UK, and Indian coverage, and I'm certain there is more to be found. Apart from language and national diversity, chronological diversity is also extremely important. We will probably want to add modern RS perspectives to this article in 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, etc. The way this issue is perceived in the future will be much more neutral than how it is perceived "in the instant". Diversity of sources could also include coverage of extremists on both sides (though in this particular situation that might push the bounds of BLP). Anyway the main point is that we have to work within the limits of WP:RS, but the way to fix this kind of bias is to diversify the sources. -Thibbs (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue people have with the media, which I believe is a legitimate reason to NOT use specific language from that media that shares an opinion, is that Leigh Alexander is mostly responsible for gaming representation with these media sites, and wrote the article for Time. IF we are to use these sources, make it clear this is a DEFENSE argument, and OPINION, you can use facts but do not use their language other than when framing their opinion. This is NOT an essay. Do not use 'quotations from other sources' in your sentence as if you're proving a point, because the point is to NOT prove a point. The point is to be neutral. EvilConker (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that we are not using the Time article for framing the situation, because of exactly that - Leigh Alexander is a full time video game writer and while her opinion is valuable, she won't be 100% unbiased, and thus her opinion is relegated to the responses section. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

What should be done? We cite those reliable sources and write an article about it, that is all. If someone does not like what the sources say about the matter, those someones are are free to go elsewhere and blog about it; they are most assuredly not free to try to get their opinion represented in an encyclopedic article. Tarc (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• If by "the public" you mean 4chan, I recommend we stick to the reliable sources :P Kaldari (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Set up archiving on this talk page?

Lots of rejected edit requests and old threads, so I'll be bold and set up auto-archiving if nobody objects. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 13:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Conduct

Remember, this is Wikipedia. Do NOT use this article to further an agenda/your opinion. Keep this concise, keep this on point, do not do your own 'linking.'

Several of these articles linked have a bias. This is not an essay. This is an enyclopedia. IF an article has bias, do not quote it UNLESS it is framed as a 'counter-point.' Therefore, it should NOT be in the background area, ONLY in the 'criticism' or defense area.'

We need to present facts, a timeline of what is happening when this began. When this began is August 16th, so let's make it about August 16th onwards.

You wouldn't mention that Micheal Brown was some 'random black kid' because the South Carolina Tribune said they were, that is an opinion, not a fact. The same rule applies here.

This is not where you do your own sleuthing, drawing red lines, etc. This is where we present facts.

And insulting another user is completely unacceptable.EvilConker (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that secondary sources have identified Quinn' problems with the gaming community before the GG accusations, we cannot ignore what happened before Aug 16. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

They have identified, not linked. A link is an opinion. Masem, I realize your expertise is with video game articles so let me make a better analogy:

This is the 'gameplay mechanics' section. In the mechanics section you talk about what happened, how it plays, etc. You do not give an opinion on that. In the Development section you say what the developers were thinking. In the reviews section you say what reviewers had to say, THAT is where the opinion is, and it has to be fair and balanced, which is not what this is right now. Our goal with the background is to make people understand a timeline of GamerGate, what happened in GamerGate? When did it happen? We aren't here to do analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilConker (talk • contribs) 14:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The stuff on DQ and what happened to Quinn before is not opinion. It happened, this is why when her ex brought up charges there were some that jumped at that to follow up on her former problems. She had opponents before her ex's statement. That is not an opinion, that is well established fact. Also our goal is not to provide a timeline of events as that means we would get far too much into the details of all the accusations that have been made; it is to help the reader understand the background and nature of what GG is and why it is appearing in mainstream press. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"This is why" is an opinion. You are doing your own sleuthing and coming to your own conclusions.EvilConker (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope - several secondary sources make note that Quinn's problems started with DQ and this only amplified that. Its an issue covered by sources and thus would be POV to ignore. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sighs* EvilConker, Masem is right in that it's relevant at it's base. Masem, please be aware, as I said to you before - there can be too much detail.MicBenSte (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, we have to be careful with the amount of details, but all the parts of that first paragraph are necessary for two reasons: to show why Quinn has been targetted, and to show elements of the resentment gamers have on titles like these that tie into the larger complaints from the GG movement. That para is right at the size it needs to be. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it's relevent enough for it to warrant a copy of the content on its page. I think 'Depression Quest developer Zoe Quinn' linking to the Depression Quest article is a clearer alternative. Remember, the point is concision and neutrality. And how that paragraph is currently written it's neither concise nor neutral, so I think the correct movement is to delete it or heavily revise it. Can you give me a case to why this paragraph is neutral and should be kept?EvilConker (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

WP articles should be reasonably self contained. It is necessary to set just a bit of background on who Quinn is and why she was a target, so it is necessary to explain the harassment she got in releasing DQ. We're not going into the mechanics or details reception of DQ here, that's why that link is there, but to simply jump into the accusations against Quinn does not help a reader who has no idea about the recent politics of the video game world. It is completely appropriate in context. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone trying to get this article neutral will get their edits reverted

At this point editing article is pointless, some people have taken over and made it their own. That leading is the most POV wording I've seen in my life Loganmac (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

People need to understand that while not everyone on the pro-GG side has been involved in the harassment or misogynmy, it is unavoidable that a small fraction have been, and as such , the media (non-gamer even) is giving that side very little weight because it is very difficult to give any rationale justification for harassment. Yes, there are honest efforts that I am trying to find and include to present those pro-GG that are against the use of harassment but feel there is still a voice to be side, as to include those, but we have to struggle against the fact that mainstream press are not going to present a favorable view of a side that uses tactics like harassment to get their way, even if that was only a tiny minority of the segment. That's the way mainstream media works. If anything, the gaming press has tried to look to understand the issues more, since their the centerpoint of some of the issues. We cannot create favoriable coverage of the proGG side (or even valid criticism of Quinn et al) if reliable sources do not cover that. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

In which case you'd need to start asking questions regarding the presence of the article itself. If due to RS-reasons Wikipedia cannot create an balanced view, while out on the rest of the Internet on blogs etc people are showing what is, but they aren't considered RS and aren't getting any attention - what does Wikipedia hope to achieve then by maintaining the article? It's the same situation, as for example, trying to debunk Colin Powell's claims about Saddam Hussein's WMDs shortly before the 3rd Gulf War - about next to none RS tried to debunk it. Thus, if you tried to create an balanced page about it at that time, chances are high you'd land into the same frustrating situation as now with GamerGate. MicBenSte (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, we should remove all stories about terrorism, since no legit media source will take the side of terrorism as a valid action. There's zero problem with having an article on a topic that is going to be unbalanced in the coverage in mass media, but we should try to include any and all valid non-fringe points of view explain the rationales behind the pro GG group (which we have, they're not yet all in place but there are several to add more). --MASEM (t) 18:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I've just read somewhere that the tag #GamerEthics has been claimed as a way to discuss the implications of the incident in journalism and gaming, without the baggage of harassment and misogyny. I'll try to track the page where I found it; if reliable sources report it, it can be good a way to expand coverage on the other side of the debate and improve neutrality of the whole thing. Diego (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Just a note that this article and talk page is subject to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions; I highly recommend reading and abiding by the conduct outlined there. Dreadstar ☥ 16:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

What arbitration case does this fall under that discretionary sanctions are applicable?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

All articles with BLP issues are subject to discretionary sanctions. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That is a vague as hell way to shut people up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That's arbcom's word on how BLP subjects should be handled. It's been on the books since 2008. Think it's 'vague as hell?' Take it up with them. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It's vague when it's applied here is all.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Arbcom would specifically have to list pages or related pages that would be under Discretionary sanctions for this to apply (for example, if Zoe Quinn was on there, I would certainly expect that to cover here as well). BLP issues apply, but there's no ArbCom aspects here. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. Read the sanctions. It is not 'vague' but broad, and deliberately so. It covers any and every article where there are BLP concerns, because we take potential defamation very seriously here. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Section removed per WP:BLP

In this diff, I have removed allegations about a living person which are poorly-sourced, derogatory and contentious in accordance with the biographies of living persons policy. It has been previously discussed that APGNation is not a reliable source; while it may be acceptable for claims about TFYC's own actions, that effectively-primary-sourced interview is not acceptable for derogatory claims about other people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

APGNation has an editorial team that controls what is posted on the site. That qualifies as a reliable source. And the content of the interview in question is mentioned throughout the other sources we have on the page, including in the section.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Having an editorial team does not in and of itself make a site reliable, and even if it did, these accusations are not even being presented by them as fact. They're TFYC's claims, written in their words in an interview on a decidedly third-rate gaming site. We need much, much stronger sourcing to even include this information with a 'TFYC said' qualifier, let alone present it as fact. We can't include any potentially defamatory information about a BLP subject that is only sourced to another individual's claims in a very weak source.

We need much better sourcing from more reliable sources to include this level of detail: the high quality sources that we have on GamerGate rarely to more than mention that TFYC exists (and in at least one case note that GamerGaters' donations to the project appear to have been out of spite.) As it is we're scraping the bottom of the sourcing barrel for most of the information that's in the article: we're giving undue weight to what the mainstream media is treating as a footnote. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The dispute between Quinn and TFYC is mentioned in Forbes, and TechCrunch mentions the connections between the Indiegogo hack and GamerGate. We are allowed to use statements about the group to describe their involvement. I will agree that their statements on those around them regarding their attempts to reach out to the press to allegedly be shut out by Quinn need stronger sourcing and in my revisions ot the section I have not mentioned them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong:, thanks. That's what I was looking for - some better secondary sourcing and avoiding a dubious unsupported statement about a person's actions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Julian Assange commented on Gamergate-calling censorship involved "pathetic"

[38] I think this is an interesting comment, from a notable person.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It'd be interesting if it wasn't Reddit, sadly enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicBenSte (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is misogny mentioned first?

Can we phrase the first line in the article to mention both misogny and journalism ethics then just misogny and harrasment?--Torga (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources focus on the misogyny and harassment primarily, and whatever message there may be about ethics as a footnote. Unfortunately we at Wikipedia cannot write about things that have not already been written or give undue weight to a minority opinion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, it is the first thing nearly all external RSes relate as an issue here. It is the issue of why the larger press is talking about it. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

So we do not write about ethics and corruption in the press because the press have not written about it? --Torga (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It's in there (see Analysis section), but it's not the first issue that's associated with this. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

So the press gets accused of something, associates it with a completely unrelated issue, Wikipedia uses it as a primary source, and then Wikipedia itself becomes a source of falsified history. This is exactly why Wikipedia absolutely shouldn't cover ongoing issues, as it is now has the capability to alter the history itself.  Grue  18:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Published news articles are secondary sources, and reliable media outlets can still be considered reliable even when they're reporting on a manufactured controversy involving crackpot conspiracy theories about the media. Diaries, chat logs and personal blogs are primary sources: we use those sparingly if at all. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Did anyone bother to check if "Gamergate" as such even existed at the time Zoe Quinn's harassment happened? Was Adam Baldwin who created the hashtag ever involved in Zoe Quinn's harassment? Why is all the Zoe Quinn's stuff, that happened before #gamergate was established, in this article and not in hers? These are some basic questions that come to my mind when reading this article. It's like if I was reading an article about hamburgers with a long lead-in about civil war in Somalia.  Grue  18:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Adam Baldwin used the hashtag while linking to two defamatory youtube videos detailing the ridiculous allegations against Quinn that were being used to justify her harrassment. GamerGate is and always was fundamentally about punishing a woman. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

So, is it the stated goal of the movement, or something derived from (possibly biased) secondary sources? It seems that this is something that could be moved into "Criticism" section, while actual stated goals of the movement, sourced from notable supporters of the movement should be used to lead into the article. This way seems less biased to me and more in line with how other controversial topics are usually treated.  Grue  18:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no central voice for the GG movement (ignoring Quinn's claims this was organzied on 4chan), and as such no one can state what the goals of the movement are. All reliable sources are trying to figure out the shape of that, but without a single, reliable voice, GG is going to be treated by the media about how it is perceived, not by how it wants to be perceived. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We're not framing the issue using the sources that have been called into question on the matter (eg, we're not using gaming sites for the main points, we're using national newspapers and magazines). And if those sources are framing it that way, we sorta have to follow. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

And some of the editors wont even let both the issue be mentioned in the first sentence. So i think its best to put both issues on the first line. --Torga (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We cover it as the reliable sources cover it. you would need to show that reliable sources are generally covering them equally and not focusing on the harassment and covering the reporter-developer issue as a footnote. Given that everything i have seen published to date is "harassment harassment harassment harassment harassment harassment journalistic ethics harassment harassment" you will need to be coming up with A LOT of sources that focus solely on the journalistic ethics to have a basis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit protected

I've protected the page for 48 hours. Between all the edit-warring and 3RR, I could block 20 people. Hopefully protection will lead to cooler heads. Bgwhite (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• To be honest, I'd extend that protection to indef and make people use editprotected. At the moment, there's simply too much disruption to unprotect it again. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  At this point the main issue is one editor who is against the labeling of the debate as misogynistic covered in the section above this one and his constant removals of this fact despite multiple requests for him to stop.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 September 2014

Put an "s" on the end of "accusation" so that we adhere to basic rules of grammar. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

A separate, but minor request, the use of "supports" in Masem's edit here should probably be changed to "supporters".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

SPA edit needs to be restored, per BLP

WP:WRONGVERSION notwithstanding, please revert this edit made by a single-purpose account right before protection. That the allegations were proven false (and that is reliably sourced) is rather critical to the WP:BLP subject. Tarc (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

support per the source "The site investigated the alleged ethics breach and concluded there had been no wrongdoing," -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Torga needs to be banned already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I do? Because i am actually trying to balance this? --62.243.82.158 (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You're not balancing it. It was balanced already. You're skewing it to your point of view.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)