Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

vague statements, not found in source

games centering on social issues grew in popularity, and some of these were seen by elements of the hardcore gaming community as not fitting their definition of games
Which elements of the hardcore gaming community, and who said it? The vox source statement about the gaming community was: "the community is already primed to think that any discussion of games in a sociopolitical context means that talk of banning them isn't far behind." Statement and source do not match.

The growth of the audience for video games and an increasing perception of their potential as an art form prompted gaming outlets to move towards cultural criticism of the games
Vox do not mention cultural criticism of the games. They do talk about cultural journalist, with the statement "if a cultural journalist writes about a game or movie or book, the implicit assumption is that this is worth you knowing about on some level". Statement and source do not match.

A large number of women whose primary gaming interests did not conform to those of the male-oriented gamer identity, and who began to question some of the assumptions and tropes that were historically used by game developers.
This is an implied historical perspective around gamer identity, but without source. Who said that, and where? The time article states that "Over the last few weeks, identity tensions have divided fans online in strange, ugly episodes rooted in how writers discuss games and who is allowed to participate." That is the historical perspective about the last weeks. Statement and source do not match.

In light of the growing female audience for games, and growing female representation in the gaming industry, outlets became increasingly interested in detailing issues of gender representation in video games
As a reader, I wonder whom those outlets are or who's analysis it is. Neither vox, latimes or times can tell me when this "increasingly interested" started, or if it stated.

In all, sourceless statement that should be removed or have sources to support them. Instead they were reintroduced, and thus posted here for further discussion. Unsourced statements are normally a non-issue for articles with this many editors, but I guess the tone here should have scared me away from looking at it. Belorn (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

As a comment, most of these are sourcable points from earlier sources in the GG commentary. They are not fully contentious (if you follow video games, these are obvious trends), but we do need better sourcing for them if they aren't in the sources attached, but I do believe all those sources exist. --MASEM (t) 04:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If they "obviously" exist, someone should ad it. The article is long enough that we don't need to have additional sourceless statements that are broad and vague. I removed the content for this very purpose and got reverted. Wikipedia:Verifiability puts the burden to demonstrate verifiability with the editor who adds or restores material. As such, please demonstrate verifiability. Belorn (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The contested material Belorn has been removing is indeed in the sources that he keeps removing along with the text in question. Just because it is not spelled out identically as we do on the article does not mean that the material is not supported.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

please demonstrate verifiability. Pull quote or give line number. Just because you believe they are "in there" doesn't make it so. Belorn (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying you haven't actually looked at the sources? Artw (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No, how can I pull quotation from the articles without looking at them?Belorn (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong claimed they were supported in the last paragraph of vox and times, so I will (given copyright allows it) pull them here for illustration:

So, in essence, #GamerGate has "won," superficially, but it can never really win. The movement is probably too big now to accomplish all of its goals, much less concretely articulate them. - Vox

As video games unshackle from old constraints, traditional fans double down on keeping the treehouse sacrosanct. The tension between “games as product” and “games as culture” is visible within these online controversies as everyone invested in the industry watches to see which will “win”. Someone should tell the internet conspiracy theorists they can relax — we’ll absolutely, definitely have both. - time.com

Those do not support any of the 4 cited statements above. I don't know why you think it does, and start question good-faith here.Belorn (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong was pointing you at the end of the paragraph where the citations were sitting, not the last paragraph of those articles. Artw (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Artw is right. I don't know how "In Vox and Time at the end of the entire paragraph" means "its in the last paragraph at Vox and Time". This is ridiculous Belorn. Read the whole pieces instead of just going "give me proof" because editors before you have used those sources as the proof necessary.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks artw. I was asking Ryulong where in the article the statements were directly supported, and the reply was "In Vox and Time at the end of the entire paragraph". I see now that the reply was not actually an answer to the question, which is why the confusion happened. I am still waiting to hear where in the article (line, quote or paragraph) that directly support each of the above 4 statements. If the answer is "the whole articles", then please explain how both articles directly support each of the 4 statements. If Ryulong has read the articles he want to use, he should be able to explain how they directly support the statements. Belorn (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually read the articles, beyond the last paragraphs, and found them lacking in that regard? Artw (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise I would not have stated that none of the 4 statements above can be found supported in either of the articles. Since there is now 2 editors stating that the articles strongly support the 4 statements, could either of you (or anyone else) please explain how the articles directly support the statements. Belorn (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a relevant question, time wasting questions and excessive nitpicking being a bit of a recurring theme here.

Here's some quotes form the "can games be art" section of the

And, really, a big part of this debate is about how games are allowed to be art. The indie game scene stretches the definition of games in an industry dominated by massive action blockbusters. Depression Quest and Gone Home keep coming up in this debate because both are, for the most part, devoid of traditional gameplay mechanics. They're less about getting you through a gameplay narrative and more about making you have a particular experience. They're about personal, artistic expression more than a carefully controlled story that apes big-budget movies.

"In the past, there was this fictional conception that a reviewer could apply an ‘objective' score to a video game, untainted by any personal bias. Given that games are highly subjective, experiential things, and not mobile phones, this idea is a bit silly to begin with," Alexander said. "But then you add into the mix that the historical model of games coverage involved bargains struck between marketing departments at big games companies and the advertising departments of niche games magazines, and it's stunning that the biggest ‘ethical concerns' our audience has ever raised come from an environment where people now do personal, creative writing about independent games."

The film industry is a good comparison point here. That's a world where there are both huge blockbusters and smaller, more intimate films that take chances with the form. Video games are getting there, too. This is, ultimately, just a part of that evolution. And as long as that evolution continues, there will be this sort of fractious debate. Because what #GamerGate is all about isn't who is or isn't a gamer, or what role the press should play. It's about what games should be and who they should be for. And that's worth a real discussion, not just a hashtag.

Possibly you skimmed over that? Artw (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

4 statements, let see if that quote directly support each of them.

1. '"games centering on social issues grew in popularity" is supported by "Depression Quest and Gone Home keep coming up in this debate because both are, for the most part, devoid of traditional gameplay mechanics. "?
2. '"The growth of the audience prompted gaming outlets to move towards cultural criticism" is supported by "In the past, there was this fictional conception that a reviewer could apply an ‘objective' score to a video game, untainted by any personal bias. "?
3. male-oriented gamer identity. Honestly, no idea what that is supposed to be supported by. A hint please?
4. outlets became increasingly interested in detailing issues of gender representation in video games. Again, no clue how that is directly supported by any of that. Some implied statement by related aspect of movies? Belorn (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Imagine my suprise that you turn out to be a timewaster with reading comprehension issues. Go do your own homework. Artw (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. If your inability to demonstrate how the sources support the claims is causing you to make derogatory comments about other editors, I suggest trying harder. Belorn (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have asked WP:ORN for help in reading the sources and see if a person outside this discussion can see the statements as directly supported by the two cited articles. If the editors who want to include the statements refuses to explain in what way the cited articles directly support the statements, maybe someone at the noticeboard will. Belorn (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Your challenges have been challenged. What is your real goal here?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

My goal is to have statements which is supported by sources. For example, the article claim that games centering on social issues has grew in popularity, and I would like to know who claims it and what data they are using to support it. As a reader, that would interest me, as gaming trends is interesting. I would also like to know in what way gaming outlets has moved towards cultural criticism. Gaming outlets was talking about cultural criticism like game violence back in the mid 1990, and if there has been a recent change towards more focused efforts, then I would like to know whom claims it and what data they are using to support it. Lastly, Wikipedia makes the claim that gamer identity is male-oriented. I would like to know what sources is used to support it. It is a bit disturbing that wanting to know who makes what claim (ie, verifiability) is seem as time wasting for wikipedia editors. What is your real goal here Ryulong by refusing to explain in what way the cited articles directly support the statements?Belorn (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Artw has shown you what was said. The Devil's Advocate challenged your challenging of the text as well. And it doesn't matter if you dislike the subject. The content is found in the sources. It's not my job to point that out to you because you didn't feel like reading it beyond trying to find anything that closely resembled what had been written instead of a completely different set of text with the same concept.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If you do not feel like reading the article so can figure it out for yourself, I can not make you. The content is not found in the sources. The concept from the 4 statement is not there, nor has you tried to show it. Artw pulled a few quotes, which implied vaguely about the subject of 2 statements and had nothing about the remaining 2. Belorn (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Except I'm not the one who added it. Multiple editors reverted you as they did not disagree with your assertion that the content was not sourced, and it wasn't just me. The content is variously sourced throughout the page and those general sources discuss the aspects, just not in the way you think is absent. And if you really have issues, maybe you should raise them up with The Devil's Advocate who was the original author of the section.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material~as per WP:V.Belorn (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that you're looking for pull quotes, but these statements are general summaries of the articles.

Statements 1 and 2 are related. Vox compares the games industry with the film industry: in the evolving games industry, smaller games developers can take chances on games like Gone Home and Depression Quest, games that both emphasize social issues (for example, “the experience of having depression”) and avoid “traditional gameplay mechanics”, to the point where they may be considered “Walking Novels” or “Interactive Novels” but which Vox feels are nevertheless still considered games. But there is pushback “that games like Depression Quest and Gone Home are called 'games' in the first place”. Vox states that games can be a “personal, artistic expression” which requires subjective review as one does with art.

Statements 3 and 4 are related. Time looks at the games industry historically, discussing how the industry was into “sell[ing] high-end hardware to young men” and their “young male demographic”, but that better and easier tools led to a “rapidly maturing, surprisingly diverse medium”, which changed “the way games journalists parse all this for their readers”, including “[p]rominent feminist critique”. On these points, the Vox article is more about the current state of the industry, that game media are “covering issues of female representation in games”, calling out specific criticisms such as “harmful tropes”, and “engag[ing] with LGBT issues”.

I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It does, thanks. Vox brings two examples of game to talk about such games. To go from there and state that "social issues grew in popularity" seems to me a bit of a stretch since two data points do not make a trend (statistically speaking).

The time quote is "The games that have historically enjoyed the biggest budgets and the highest returns are Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, Halo and their ilk. Aimed largely at that young male demographic", which talk about those specific games targeted demographic. From there we extrapolate that the whole gamer-identity is male. It is a bit of a stretch, especially given that the Forbes articles from kain described "white, male nerds with deep-seeded fears of both reality and women" as a negative gamer stereotype which only describe a small minority of those who self-identify as gamer. I would add that as a counter weight if I thought there was a chance that it would ever get pass the gatekeepers. Belorn (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right that Vox specifically calls out only Depression Quest and Gone Home, but that source also includes a screenshot of Fez and refers to an "indie game scene" focusing on more personal games. Time also lists a number of games with "rich, touchable experiences" and "oddly intimate interactions" and states that "new digital business models help game companies endure". To me, that indicates a trend of more games with sustainable business models. Personally, I would have preferred if the articles had included concise pullout quotes—especially because they're important points—but I suppose that's why I write for Wikipedia instead of Time. And I wouldn't say that our use of "male-oriented gamer identity" implies that men are the only gaming demographic—"growing female audience" suggests that women were there all along?, as we know—but men were the money demographic. Which is changing, so games journalism must "parse" their articles for the more "diverse" demographics. Woodroar (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate for non-gamers

If you can get the article in the vicinity of this one, it will be a good article. If you can't, it will be a poor article. Willhesucceed (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia can't provide an article that reads like that, because that article is an opinion piece, and is not attempting to provide a neutral point of view, but the author's point of view. It is a good opinion piece, but a Wikipedia article can't be an opinion piece. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It might be a good idea for non gamers to explain what GamerGate actually is. Yes, it's a controversy, but which side are "GamerGate supporters" on? It's not at all clear from reading this! Simongarrett (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Can an article be too biased in favor of near-universal sourcing of one side of an issue? (Gamergate controversy)

Is it possible that in an article about a two-sided issue where one side has received the majority of the positive coverage to be too biased in favor of that larger coverage?

Statement

Gamergate itself is highly controversial, and one of the issues with covering it is that one side (pro- Gamergate, or proGG) is from numerous anonymous users without any clear leadership, has had some members engage in harassment attacks against women (which the media frowns on), and has argued the media itself is biased. The limited sourcing that supports proGG typically are at the weak end, and/or fail our normal reliable sources policies. As such, the near unanimity of reliable sources paint the story in favor of the anti Gamergate/antiGG side and do not give a lot of equal coverage to the proGG side. This is not in doubt, and we are very clear that this article can never be 50/50 unbiased between the two sides. It is also very clear that the article is going to have to talk about the media's highly critical response to the harassment (eg. calling proGG as sexism and misogynistic) as this is part of the actual narrative as opposed to analysis (as proGG's responded to these charges with various actions). So we are, for some parts, going to have statements that we attribute to the mainstream media that are critical of that side.

This of course has brought in a number of SPAs and IP editors, influenced by offsite posts, to try to point out the bias in this article and to try to make it more proGG friendly. We have extensively pointed out we cannot flip the narrative that far around because the mainstream media has not treated the story like that. The proGG has had some favorable or detailed coverage, as to avoid it being a FRINGE viewpoint, but again, having 50/50 in this article is completely impossible by our sourcing and core content policies.

That said, I have argued that while we cannot give proGG any more coverage, we are instead giving the antiGG side far too much coverage, to the point of being preachy on how "right" the antiGG side is, and how bad the proGG side is. This is evidenced by certain phrasing, excessive use of the negative words "harassment" and "misogyny" (and forms thereof), and overuse of near-full quotes from antiGG sources when they are not needed for explaining the key parts of the narrative. Technically this all fits within our sourcing and content policies, but there's something wrong when it can be argued "well, there's no proGG sources, but there's plenty of antiGG sources, so lets keep adding those". This has cleared been a fact resonated in the main proGG offsite forums that are extremely disappointed with this article in how it paints them. (Please note: one has to take care in considering these offsite opinions as they range all over the spectrum, but there are people that are very coherent that have expressed very valid concerns on how bad the bias seems on this article). I have tried to point out that we should be clinically/detached neutral, which means we should not be repeating the praising that the antiGG side and berating the proGG side. The counterargument that has been used here by those that think there is no bias is that UNDUE/WEIGHT supports this approach, since the near-majority of sources are in that direction.

The question I pose here is two fold: 1) Even considering WP:WEIGHT/WP:UNDUE, when one side of a debate is overwhelming positively covered by sources and the other side is not, is it possible to push the widely-covered side too much to create bias in the opposite direction? 2) Does this article on GamerGate demonstrate this type of bias? Note that previous DR attempts have been made but rejected, and while the next step might be ArbCom, this feels more a content dispute and we have not tried a more global RFC. This will be posted to CENT and VPP, and will be posted to WT:VG, but any other projects that are related should be notified too.

(A note to any SPA/IP that might find their way here, please be aware this is not a vote but a discussion towards consensus, and input from relatively new users will typically be ignored if they don't offer policy-based reasons) --MASEM (t) 05:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a false presentation. There are NOT "two sides". There are thousands of anonymous, pseudo - anonymous, non-notable and/or astroturf accounts using the term "gamergate" in about a bajillion different ways to refer to their own personal interpretation and grievances. You cannot have "two sides" about an issue when everyone is using their own definition of the issue. Reliable sources in the media have covered the uses and applications of the term that they have found note worthy - essentially the use of the term as a cover for harassment of women.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what exactly your claim is. If there is not a proGG side, then why are there thousands of people identifying themselves as such? The matter of what proGG stands for is irrelevant to whether it actually exists. What else would you call this group of people who, while (according to your claim) having no consensus over what they stand for, nonetheless define themselves as proGG or an equivalent term. What would you call them? And as you yourself say, if thousands of people identify themselves with a proGG side, then that would, tautologically, make them 'supporters of Gamersgate'. Yet, according to you, they should not be referred to this way? Why? Omegastar (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am proZIGGER and I am for X
• I am proZIGGER and I am for Y
• I am proZIGGER and I am for Y but not X
• I am proZIGGER and I am for Z but not X and not Y
• I am antiZIGGER and I am against Y
• I am proZIGGER and I am for W but not Z
• I am proZIGGER and I we dont believe in W

Now tell me what a proZigger is? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

A proZIGGER. Also, you did not answer my question. Omegastar (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Use common sense. There is definitely two sides here, that's clear by the sources, but the scope of the "proGG" side is vague, but they do exist, it's not a non-entity. --MASEM (t) 00:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If you insist, yes, there is a progameragate "side", the one covered by reliable sources is the side that sends death threats to women. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That's clearly not exclusively how the proGG side is described in the majority of sources, and it is because the way some editors want this article to take that attitude and ignore the other facets of the proGG argument is why this RFC exists. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No true gamergater is going to be a wuss and talk about "ethics" when we can drive women from their homes. In an amorphous and chaotic movement with no defined leaders, goals, or even principles, you cannot simply choose a particular subset of the voices that you wish and claim that they are the representatives of some sort of "pro" "side". The media has reviewed and rejected, multiple times, the vague, wide-ranging, contradictory and false content of gamergate tweets and what is left as a coherent "side" is misogynistic terrorism. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You contradict yourself. Is GamersGate 'amorphous and chaotic'? Or 'coherent'. You make both claims. If GamersGate is amorphous and chaotic, how can it be defined as predominantly misogynistic or terrorist? And if GamersGate is misogynistic and terrorist, why are there so many people, who identify themselves as supporters of GamerGate, disputing the claims of misoginy and terrorism?Omegastar (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I dont contradict myself, I said after you take away the fluff that "what is left as a coherent "side" is misogynistic terrorism." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Q1: Can an article become too biased in the favor of the side with the near-majority of sources?

(Leave and sign replies, perhaps "Yes", "No", or other clarification.)

• Yes. No matter how overwhelming the preponderance of a viewpoint expressed in reliable sources, Wikipedia can become biased in favor of it - because Wikipedia doesn't take viewpoints, only summarizes them. Some games have received near-unanimous critical acclaim, and whether I agree with this (e.g. BioShock Infinite, Final Fantasy VII) or not (e.g. EarthBound, Majora's Mask), Wikipedia is not allowed to state "The game was good". In my eyes, the only situation in which it's appropriate simply to phrase the majority of sources' statements as objective truths is one that wouldn't normally generate controversy by doing so: when they're factual and uncontroversial in nature. The very existence of these sources damns this possibility, because they illustrate that not only does an opposition to their views (i.e. pro-Gamergate) exist; it's worth writing about. TL;DR: Yes, if the content in question is opinions, because Wikipedia doesn't espouse opinions. Tezero (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Not sure the term "bias" is useful here, because bias relative to what? If anything, this bias argument implies an institutionalized unfairness, that WP is leaving something out, or that WP is unfair for only using "reliable sources" since the perspectives needed are not reiterated in such sources. Regardless of what we lose as a culture for omitting minority perspectives for want of sourcing, WP is successful by its own standards if it successfully emulates the character of the breadth of sources on a topic. What we're really discussing is weight, and if you use that term, this question becomes tautological: an article cannot be unduly weighted if it is giving the perspectives on a topic due weight (proportional to their coverage). *** From everything I've read on GG, I think the idea of two equal "sides" is mistaken—on WP, there is the corpus of every reliable article written on a topic, and from that set we can choose a subset to highlight in an article. If WP deliberately suppressed representation for a commonly held idea within that subset, sure, that would count as slant. If the coverage does not take pains to present this other "side", by our own weight and notability definitions, those unvetted perspectives are not some counterweighted equal, but a minority report with respect to the overall topic. Given the body of work published on GG, the sources used in the article should reflect the overall magnitude of coverage given to each claim/idea and not artificially enhanced in the name of truth. The idea of presenting any "controversy" article as equally weighted sides makes no sense—if sources cover some perspectives more than others, the article should reflect that proportionality such that its "bias" is identical to the corpus of source material (though "bias" is the wrong term). The premise of this question is flawed czar ♔ 06:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes - Wikipedia should only summarize existing sources, but even if the preponderance of existing source swing towards a specific majority viewpoint, there's a lot of editorial discretion that goes into how the actual article is worded. You can take 5 glowing video game reviews and use them to write a section that talks about how reviewers said a lot of positive things about a game, or use them to talk about how the game is the best thing since sliced bread- it's all in how you write it. Also, please note that Tezero's opinion is completely invalid, since he thinks EarthBound isn't as good as everyone else says it is. --PresN 06:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes it obviously can as NPOV concerns questions of weight and tone that are not negated by having the majority of sources backing your position. Generally, we would want the best and most neutral sources to be given high priority. Those sources that avoid overly opinionated language or make contentious claims that are not clearly provable should be given a low priority.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes An opinion being so widely shared doesn't make it a fact. Halfhat (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• I'm really lost on how you can asnwer this question with yes or no. Are we being asked if artcles are permitted to become biased if the sources are one-sided, or are we being asked if articles can be too biased if the sources only follow one side? I'm inclined to say yes to the former and and no to the latter, but the wording is a bit too ambiguous for a clear response. Looking above, Halfhat and TDA seems to be responding to the second interpretation of the question, while Tezero and PresN seem to be responding to the first interpretation. What was the intent? - Bilby (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• This is a ridiculous question, and I cannot even understand why this is being entertained as a serious discussion. If you want to discuss wikipedia policy take it somewhere relevant to wikipedia policy, as it stands the article will reflect the weight of sources. Anything else is irrelevant. As per Bilby. Koncorde (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. If DUE policy conflicts with NOTADVOCATE, then the article should be rewritten in a more neutral and dispassionate form. Belorn (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• This question is Pointless and off topic. There's no use in hypotheticals when there's a concrete issue to discuss, and asking a softball like this is inappropriate. -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• I agree this is not a proper RFC question, it's basically "should WP:UNDUE exist?" only with loaded phrasing. Artw (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Er, no, and I'm having a hard time believing that this was actually a serious question. Editors do not get to second-guess reliable sources...especially venerable ones with a history of editorial discretion and control. "The sources all say X, but we can't got get about Y just because not as many are talking about Y". Well guess what? YES WE DAMN WELL CAN. The predominant, mainstream point-of-view of;
  • Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories == the birth certificate is real, the non-believers are fringe conspirators
  • Global warming == it does exist, human activity has caused it to increase over time
  • Apollo 11 == they landed on the moon
  • September 11 attacks == 19 hijackers crashes 4 planes at the behest of bin Laden. Not Jews, not George W. Bush.
• Once the hea dies down, Gamergate controversy will follow suit, where the primary narrative will be the misogynist harassment of women, and "but ethics" will be the conter-claim, though not given even remotely the same weight as the primary. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• No per WP:UNDUE: 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 (emphasis mine). At the end of the day, Wikipedia can only summarize the existing reliable sources. Attempting to present "both sides" of a controversy where nearly all of the reliable sources support one side would be detrimental to Wikipedia (just imagine what the articles listed by Tarc would look like if we attempted this). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• No. Wikipedia articles reflect what the reliable sources say. If the majority of reliable sources say X, then the article says X. Anything else is WP:UNDUE. In other words, Wikipedia articles must give each viewpoint the same prominence, words, and weight that it receives in reliable sources - that is what it means for an article to be neutral. In fact, giving one side more weight than it's given in reliable sources would make the article biased. Ca2james (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Non starter. Per policy, No. WP:UNDUE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. WP:UNDUE works both ways. If the minority viewpoint is dismissed or misrepresented then bias will result per a WP:NPOV violation. Muscat Hoe (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• For me, this question largely comes down to WP:RGW. Perhaps the sources we have available to work with are skewed against some higher truth, but it isn't Wikipedia's proper role to get ahead of the reliable source material, because that leaves us depending upon editor opinions if we want to base content on poorly sourced material in order to provide "balance". Secondary sources count much more than anonymous postings in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. Isn't this simple logic? Multiple users who argue 'No' above me base their opinion on Wikipedia's stance on reliable sources, yet Masem's statement is not about reliable sources. Masem's statement is about the writing of the article itself. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what the reliable sources say, but it is the editors who actually put this into the words that form the article. And in doing so, editors might, consciously or unconsciously, introduce bias into an article. Omegastar (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• No This is an argument that has been seen repeatedly at topics such as Evolution, Climate change, Scientology, AltMed etc. where it has been consistently and often forcefully (including at ArbCom) rejected. The question is misleading anwyay because we're not talking about a near-majority (that would be a minority, surely?) of sources in this or any of those other cases; we're talking about an overwhelming preponderence of sources. CIreland (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• No. When all viewpoints receive appropriate weight according to their weight in the reliable sources, there's no neutrality issue.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• I don't really see the point of the question. A Wikipedia article can become almost everything, including the approximation of a thousand monkeys banging on typewriters if nobody watchlists it and reverts vandalism. But to the extent that the submitter asks whether it is problematic that if all reliable sources support one side of a controversy, our article does too, then the answer is no: that's what's supposed to happen per WP:NPOV.  Sandstein  15:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. I've brought it up before, but just because something is cast in a universally negative light doesn't mean an article isn't biased when the article makes an effort to cast that thing in a bad light. Numerous articles about controversial subjects or figures describe their subjects in a passive tone, without using wording that implies a moral judgement. An article can become biased when it seeks to express the moral judgements of a topic as the primary goal of the article. YellowSandals (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, it can. This is what WP:UNDUE does: the article takes the direction of the majority of reliable sources (whether clickbait news stories from major networks are reliable is a whole other discussion altogether). This is the definition bias, but it's generally deemed to be benign enough to pass as neutral. On highly controversial and divisive topics, however—which I'd say the ones mentioned by Tarc aren't—, this can be a problem. ansh666 03:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• See this quote from 2012

“ The problem with your analogy is that on a sports team the two ides are equal, in that both take the field with the same opportunities to advance, score, and win. Here, the two sides are not equal. We have a word that is widely used to describe a particular prejudicial belief, and we have a tiny handful of people off to one side who don't like it. WP:NPOV doesn't mean "everyone gets a seat at the table", it means "everyone of significance gets a seat at the table". If you're so fond of analogies...we're at the main Thanksgiving table in the dining room, while you're at the kids' fold-out table next to the kitchen. ” — Tarc (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

--Guerillero | My Talk 17:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• No It's not our responsibility as editors to portray something as more of a balanced issue than it is according to the sources. It would be a false move to manipulate a counterbalance on the article just because it would be in the interests of PR for the movement. WP articles are not intended to be soapboxes or pro/con debate sessions. If the movement is portrayed in an unflattering light in the media and by all or nearly-all RS, then perhaps the movement should be working at shifting people's perspectives elsewhere, not using this page in order to engage in whitewashing. Seriouslyonlyusernameleft (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• No? I'm not sure what this section is attempting to do. Protonk (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Dubious. You're basically saying there's a problem with Reliable Source coverage. Even assuming that's true, that's not something we can fix. Wikipedia is not the place to Right_Great_Wrongs. We need to follow the sources. Alsee (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - What the heck is a "near majority of sources"??? Forty-nine percent? Carrite (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Unequivocal yes Wikipedia is to document disputes, not engage in them. The very first bullet point under WP: YESPOV is "Avoid Stating Opinions as Facts". There is a tendency that when an opinion gets large enough to assert the opinion in Wikipedia's voice as fact. In such circumstances it is important to remember that WP:IMPARTIAL is also a facet of WP: NPOV. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• No As someone before said. If the reliable sources are pointing one way that is the way we follow. If the tone is too preachy while the sources are not preachy then change it. If the sources are preachy then that is what we follow. Mention of the points is more then ample coverage, just like for example in the evolution article there is a mention of creationism and that is about it. Hundreds, thousands,or millions of people can come to this page and argue. This does not mean we have to placate them anymore here as we do at the evolution article. We follow reliable sources end of story. Then again in the end I am all for waiting a few more weeks or maybe 2 more months when all of this has died down and then to see where the coverage should be. NathanWubs (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Q2: Is the current Gamergate article too biased in this manner?

(Leave and sign replies, perhaps "Yes", "No", or other clarification.)

• No — As per the due weight policy, we must give due weight to the preponderant viewpoint in reliable sources. This means that if we are going to even *slightly* mention the various claims made by GamerGate, we must make clear that they are rejected by the weight of reliable sources and those rejections will necessarily be given more weight than the claims themselves. This is particularly important given that a large number of GamerGate's claims make negative statements or inferences about living people that have been discredited or flatly disproven. We have to write the article based upon the reliable sources we have, not the article that GamerGate supporters want to have. The fact of the matter is that effectively all of GamerGate's notoriety or "notability" comes from the harassment campaigns that some of its supporters have carried on. We wouldn't even have an article about GamerGate if it wasn't for the fact that media outlets ranging from MSNBC to The New York Times, The Telegraph to The Pacific Standard have weighed in on the misogynistic harassment which is, at this point, inextricably tied to GamerGate no matter how well-meaning some of its supporters are. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Genuinely perplexed how WP editors can claim to know the true scope (and therefore true appropriate weight) of GG when the RS themselves have no idea. This article has no hope for stability until the retrospective articles are written. Best plan for now is to maintain core WP policies (BLP, V, neutrality, etc.) and to remove bloat by relying nearly exclusively on mainstream media accounts. Leave the sifting and winnowing for professionals. Our job is to present the reliable sources proportionally, not to find the truth. No.  czar ♔ 07:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes as you have, for one example, the woefully undue focus on the Felicia Day incident. This is not simply a question of due weight, though, but also phrasing and structure. It was never very good in this department, but it has only worsened in recent days with a variety of changes such as the removal of the "legitimacy of concerns" section. Many more examples exist, but these are just a couple.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes The amount of quotes on top of adding bias is just flat out poor writing. It's okay to paraphase and leave out unimportant opinions. Halfhat (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes Reading the lede makes me sick, "the movement's unwillingness or inability to control the attacks carried out in its name is generally seen as preventing constructive engagement" The whole page is spouting opinions from anti-GG Retartist (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Gibberish article has been gibberish since it was first created. This has nothing to do with bias, and everything to do with the fact it's an unencyclopedic mess of opinions and self importance now being flooded with more crap. It should always have been an article related to video game culture or journalism, instead it's 90% opinions of harassment. Not bias, just terrible. Koncorde (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes For an article with over 2000 edits with several hundred per day, there is still opinionated sourceless statements made in the wiki-voice. At times like this, editors should be conservative with the use of sources and make sure each statement is fully supported and written in a disinterested and dispassionate form. Belorn (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• No If anything the article gives too much weight to WP:FRINGE opinions as it stands. Artw (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• No. I note that you haven't actually specified in the question a particular 'direction' for the bias, and in fact I'd argue that we are giving too much weight to gamergate's claims that it's about ethics when the sources are at best mentioning that fact in passing and are increasingly taking time to actually debunk that claim, but it's clear you're seeking consensus for your vague claims that the article has anti-gamergate bias so I'll ignore that for the moment. Your argument is, again, uselessly vague. So far as I can tell you have still yet to suggest any changes at all that will rectify this 'bias' you claim exists, even in this RFC: it seems you'd rather just keep using your claim of 'bias' to drag every discussion off course with vague and unactionable arguments. The heavy use of quotes in the article, as has been pointed out again and again, is the result of this article's many POV pushers nitpicking over every blessed word that they think might possibly paint gamergate negatively until we're forced to attribute what should be uncontroversial information to individual sources rather than stating it in Wikipedia's voice. It's a symptom of bias, but it's bias in favor of gamergate. -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• No. Only answering this question as it's the only relevant one. I haven't contributed much to this article but have been following its development. I think it's now in a pretty good state that gives the different opinions about as much weight as is merited by the sources. I don't think it's biased by giving greater representation to the view which is overwhelmingly taken by the reliable sources. If anything, it's arguable (as TarainDC just argued above) that it gives too much representation to the fringe view, although I personally think it's just about alright. There are several other articles on similar controversies to this one, where one 'side' is the mainstream media view, and the other 'side' is a group of largely non-notable Internet commenters and amateurs. We can and should try to give the latter view a fair share of representation, but it's inevitable that our articles will always present a 'bias' in favour of the view taken by the reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• No. Seems by and large like an adequate reflection of what's in the types of sources Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on. Andreas JN466 14:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• No - As with all articles, this one reflects what reliable sources have to say on the matter. Much as birthers were bitterly disappointed that our birth certificate article did not adequately address the nuances of their colorful argument, the "but ethics" crowd here is just going to have to come to grips with the fact that the outside world does not see the issue in the way that they'd prefer. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• No The article is a decently fair and accurate summarization of what the reliable sources have to say. WP:NPOV does not require that we cover both sides of a controversy when the overwhelming majority of sources support one side. To the contrary, it states multiple time that we should not give undue weight in articles. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• No. In describing different sides, the article reflects what reliable sources say and gives each side the weight given by those reliable sources. Ca2james (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Perhaps we may be giving too much weight to the "ostensible" concerns claimed by the gamergaters when all the recent reliable sources are clearly indicating the "ostensible" claims have no validity or basis or meaningful part in the actual controversy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• I'm surprised to see myself saying this, but it's a tentative no from me. The page has seen improvement in qualitative allegations against Gamergaters being presented as opinions rather than uncontestable facts, and I think the representation of the pro-Gamergate side, while not ideal, is sufficient given the paucity of reliable sources agreeing with it. I'm inclined to think the severest remaining problem is a possible unnecessarily severe presentation of the incidents of harassment of celebrities themselves, but even that I don't feel strongly about. I do wish there were more weight afforded to Gamergate's currents of anti-censorship and anti-politics-in-gaming unrelated to Zoe Quinn - as Polygon's Chris Grant said, it's difficult to tease a single, coherent message out of the movement, and this is a strong part of it - but if that isn't covered by enough reliable sources, I don't see where we're going to find the requisite coverage. Tezero (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• No - The current article devotes too much attention to the pro-GG point of view. The content about 'journalistic ethics' is not reflected in mainstream reliable sources and should be removed or reduced substantially. Kaldari (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes A movement targeting journalism is destined to be misrepresented by the media and Wikipedia should be careful of these cases. Loganmac (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  You may want to look at who is actually being targeted: Data analysis of #GG tweets Kaldari (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  You may want to look above at when we were talking about that article. The amount of tweets they gathered between all 6 of the people were less than 5%, and out of the 5%, 90+% were neutral, with the last 10% being positive or negative. So Logan is right. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  Lol that actually just further proves my point, that is the worst use of statistics if it can be called that I've seen. Loganmac (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes The article is simply not constructed nor worded in a neutral manner. Note that I am talking about the wording and the structuring, not the sources. Wikipedia articles are supposed to have an Impartial tone. This article does not have that. Omegastar (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes because we're too often attributing the opinions of sources as fact. Take Sam Biddle's "bully" tweets for example. When the sources claim the tweets were in jest, that's the opinion of the author, yet it was presented as fact in the article. We can only document that the tweets were made, any intention behind why they were made needs to be attributed as someone's opinion. Muscat Hoe (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• No In fact, this article currently inadequately represents the extent of the negative commentary that exists within the top-tier sources. We are over-using second-rate sources to add fringe perspectives in inappropriate juxtaposition to the best sourced material. CIreland (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• No And let me just say that Masem's comment opening this RfC is a huge disappointment to me and my viewpoint of him as an editor, since it's about catering to the fringe rather than being a proper representation of sources and a summary of them, as what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. We do not write creationism or other fringe topics with any sort of catering of the fringe. Period and done. Silverseren^C 14:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• No. If anything, we give too much weight to the claims by gamergaters that the movement is about journalism ethics, considering that the stronger sources typically only even mention them to dismiss them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, most of the video game journalists fully recognize there are ethics issues within their ranks and aren't shy about there being problems. It's just that the specific aspects that proGG has been arguing about that can be determined by reliable sourcing is not any of the major issues that the journalists see as a problem. --14:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs)

So far, the strongest sources discussing this topic (including those outside the small sphere of video game writing) mainly bring up the "but ethics" argument as something Gamergaters say as a cover for the real story, if they bring it up at all.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't edited Gamergate controversy, but related articles. At first glance, the article is not obviously biased, but perhaps overlong and difficult to read. The only neutrality concern I have is that the lead paragraph makes prominent mention of the campaign's alleged concerns about journalistic ethics, whereas all media articles I've read about the topic (e.g. NYT Oct. 25) are pretty clear that these concerns are merely a facade for the campaign's main focus of misogynist activism and harassment. If this impression of consensus in reliable sources is correct, the article lead should also reflect it.  Sandstein  15:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  Regarding the lead paragraph Sandstein, it has been edit warred over since there were multiple attempts to edit it to make it more in line with the present weighting of the controversy. My major expansion was reverted earlier this morning and constant attempts to give the gamergate side more credence that resulted in this early attempt at compromise and then these expansions that were not met without conflict.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  That's because mainstream media, for lack of a better term, is BS. There's actually three sides here: 1) immature misogynist trolls who nobody likes; 2) feminists (for lack of a better term) and the media, both gaming and mainstream; and 3) the rest of the gamer community, who have been thrown into the ditch alongside group 1 by group 2. (You can guess my affiliation, look at my user page if you need more confirmation; also, I've restrained from commenting on this as much as I can). Much as we wouldn't let an administrator close a discussion in which they have a vested interest, the media shouldn't be reporting on these matters in the way they have - they're WP:INVOLVED. And, even if they aren't, they're trying to stir up a storm for more clicks, and people are falling for it, hook, line, and sinker. But, such is the corporate world, and such is life. ansh666 03:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. This article has not taken a passive tone while describing the controversy. Much of the wording and even the article's structure is designed to cast a moral judgement over the movement being described, based solely on the fact that many secondary sources describe a moral judgement. It is not Wikipedia's perogative to decide right from wrong - Wikipedia should only describe things in the most neutral, direct terms and allow the reader to come to their own conclusions about the motives and intentions of still-living people. YellowSandals (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, per the last two sentences of my comment above. But, I don't think there's any way to fix the problem, so whatever. Cynicism at its finest, right here. ansh666 03:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• No, for the most part. A lot of this nonsense makes more sense if you replace "gamergate" with "people who think the moon landing was faked" when talking about whether or not an article's reliance on reliable sources causes one "side" of a debate to feel under-represented. Protonk (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• No. We need to follow our core policies. It may be reasonable to search the sources to find and explain important background, but by and large the article must follow the sources. And we certainly can't invent anything that doesn't exist in the sources. Reliable Sources have decided that harassment and threats are a more notable story than potential conflicts of interest by video game journalists. It is what it is, and Wikipedia isn't a place to try to "fix" how it's being covered. BTW, the article long and rambling. Does this seriously need 21 screenfulls of text and 135 references??? Alsee (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• No. Wikipedia must describe events as they are described by reputable news sources. Only if academic articles find that the truth is different should this article deviate from the news media's portrayal. Darth Viller (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• No as we report what reliable sources say. If people say these sources are not reliable. They should bring that up and show through reliable sources that these sources are not reliable. As that probably will not be the case I will stick with me no. If any of you think that giving due weight to reliable sources is not correct. I suggest you head over to evolution and try to argue there that creationism needs more coverage and the evolution page is to bias. NathanWubs (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• No. As e.g. User:Tarc has written above, and as Q4 of the FAQ has it, the article is neutral just insofar as it reflects the RS consensus on the issue, which I believe it presently does. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 22:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional discussion

If it's the "near-majority of reliable sources" then it's not really a bias is it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Our articles on specific religions and faith are going to use a near-majority of sources that favor of that religion, but these articles do not stoop to preaching that religion but talking about it in a clinical, hands off manner. That's the same issue here. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There are enough reliable sources on religions that are separate from the religion that allow us to present it clinically. There is near universal coverage of Gamergate that says the misogynistic attacks and death threats belie any minimal attempts they have made to present themselves as a consumer movement wanting to root out corruption in games journalism, as they've accomplished nothing concrete and intentionally focused their attention on indie games and female journalists and their advertisers.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Which we cannot present as fact (that is, that proGG is misogynistic), just as we cannot say, in the case of Christianity, that the Earth was created in 7 days. We can say that the faith presents the Genesis theory that the Earth was created in 7 days, and we can say the media believes the proGG is misogynistic, but we have to recongize the line between fact and opinion, and we are relying on far too much opinion here. --MASEM (t) 05:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the utilitarian approach is needed here. I can't see how there'd be more benefit to purporting Gamergate being misogynistic as an objective fact than there would be cost. SJWs reading the page would simply say "yes, that's true" and move on, while Gamergaters would, if not resorting to vandalism or good-faith disruption, be extremely (and rightfully) miffed. Tezero (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you actually saying we should solely refer to everything as opinions and not objective facts to avoid pro-Gamergate vandalism and edit warring?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's one good reason. Tezero (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a terrible idea.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Why? Tezero (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Because there is no reason to not address something ust because it might result in vandalism or disruption. Omitting established information or treating it in another voice because a minority viewpoint on the matters disagree with it makes no sense. Doing so is effectively self-censorship, which goes against one of the pillars of Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

So you have evidence that everyone that harassed those people were misogynistic? The answer is clearly no. But we do know that sources felt the attacks were misogynistic, so we can state that in their voice, but not in WP's voice. That's a big different here. --MASEM (t) 07:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I've said here. Omitting information or treating a preponderance of similar information as an opinion of multiple sources is not how things work on all other articles on Wikipedia. It is only because of the highly vocal nature of the Gamergate supporters that this article is being treated as different.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not the attacks were carried out with a misogynistic intent is something that cannot be determined by observation alone, so while a majority of sources have claimed the attacks were misogynistic does not make it a fact, simply the popular opinion. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I find it humorous when editors care about an anonymous movement being labelled as "misogynistic" yet have no problem calling others "SJWs". "Why do those cream-faced loons keep calling me a flap-eared knave?" Do you see why some editors may question your own good faith when you use terms like that? Woodroar (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't support calling them "SJWs" in the body text, even if this were supported by the majority of sources, because it too could be considered a loaded term. I happen to think it's obvious that most of them are, so I willingly do so here, but there's a difference between talk pages and mainspace. Tezero (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I personally don't care if the MRWIs use the term "SJW" because it makes them easier to see for what they are. Carrite (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

When you have dozens of publications, and not solely video game websites, saying that the actions taken under the umbrella of GamerGate to Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, Jenn Frank, Leigh Alexander, and Felicia Day are misogynistic, then we can say that such acts are misogynistic. When multiple sources say that the initial allegations against Quinn were false (in all the myriad ways they explain that there was no initial breach of ethics), we can say that they were false allegations. Nearly everything else in the article is a quote and labeled as an opinion because the supporters of Gamergate do not want it in Wikipedia's voice.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"Misogynistic" is one of the most charged adjectives of the twenty-first century, though. We can't say (though I've definitely seen well-established users here who disagree with this policy) that child pornography is wrong, even though I can guarantee without checking that the extreme majority of reliable sources would not only say it is, but let this bias cripple the entirety of their writings. In other words, it doesn't matter how many sources say Gamergate is misogynistic; that's not a sterile, objective enough fact for us to put in our own voice. Tezero (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We are reporting that multiple news agencies, including the New York Times, the BBC, CNN, etc., have called the acts misogynistic. The article as far as I am aware is not equating this with morally reprehensible, as one would describe child abuse. However we are equating death threats with moral reprehensibility. Just because those death threats constitute misogyny does not mean we are presenting misogyny as morally reprehensible. That's all I can truly say to your analogy here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Why should we paint death threats as morally reprehensible? Tezero (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

In what context is a death threat sent to someone having an innocuous opinion on the Internet about video games ever not morally reprehensible?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Because that's not a fact. You can not objectively state anything is morally reprehensible, only that others say it is. That's his point. And that's part of being neutral. Halfhat (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Because there's not a single reliable source that doesn't treat them as morally reprehensible, and the idea that a death threat isn't morally reprehensible is so fringe as to be effectively nonexistent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ours is not to state whether something is morally reprehensible, only to state citeable facts in the context of the sources. In that same breath we shouldn't assume unless outright emphasized that misogyny is the reason behind such threats, as that's synthesizing information from what was given us.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

When multiple reliable sources say that the threats are misogynistic then we can report on that determination. We should not temper how Wikipedia reports on these things simply because of the pro-Gamergate cries of bias.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Then shouldn't we make that distinction that they're making the determination clear, and not treat it outright as fact?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

On every other topic, when multiple sources make the same distinction, generally that indicates it as a fact.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is the article doesn't read neutral in many sections, primarily in tone and to an extent information. It states Felicia Day was harassed, yet there appears to be no ongoing evidence of that outside of someone posting her personal information. Also her commentary was sincere, calling it 'scathing' makes me really wonder what we should call some of the articles Kotaku has posted as of late. The New York Times article lists the threats against Sarkessian as being from GamerGate, yet no mention of the movement was even made in those threats. Then again I don't recall them being mentioned in the threats made against Wu either, and that can be cited from the reports on the tweets themselves.

Unfortunately I'm going to abstain from going on this further; I have personal involvement with this and feel strongly about it, so I'd rather not let my opinion cloud my judgement. But I do feel it's important that we separate opinion from media outlets from fact.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No true Scotsman.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That makes no sense. It's not no true sctotsman to say it's not fact because it's opinion. You don't seem to know what that phrase means. Halfhat (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honest I'm not entirely sure where you're going with that there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You are repeating the logical fallacy that Gamergate makes to distance itself from the harassment that happens in its midst.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not a logical fallacy. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but you clearly have no understanding of logic, you're just going "You committed a fallacy", with no real understanding. That would only apply if they went "We never harass people because we define ourselves so that if you harass you aren't one of us" it's a sort of combination of questionable definition and tautology. Halfhat (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

...I'm pointing out problems I have with the article in a reasonable manner. How is that a 'logical fallacy' when we use statements to imply a steady stream of harassment against Ms. Day, when there's no evidence of such?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You are raising the issues that the attacks and harassment did not explicitly state that Gamergate was the reason or their actions. Also, Day's commentary is not being described as "scathing". Kluwe's is. The one where he refers to Gamergaters as "basement-dwelling, cheetos-huffing, poopsock-sniffing douchepistols". And the posting of her address is being treated as harassment by the various sources that are reporting on it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly not pro-gamergate; I think what little attention most of its supporters spend on actual ethical issues is wiped out by how much more time they spend arguing with and gossiping about specific online personalities that disagree with them, even aside from the undercurrent of harassment that certain supporters continue to use without being really excised from the movement, or from the very clear way the movement is shaped by people using it to complain about feminism and liberalism in video game culture. That said, like I say in the section above, you can go a long way in any direction with how you word an article, even with the same sources. I think this article gets preachy. I think that's because it's so exhausting to block gamergate SPAs and well-intentioned ignorant new editors from wrecking the article that the only voices that manage to really get into the article are those that are vociferously against gamergate. To be a bit specific, I'm really glad that Ryulong and NorthbySouthwhatever are here to keep this article from floundering into nonsense and crud, but it has resulted in an article that pulls away from objectivity into a heavily negative piece that still relies on the same sources that a really clear, clean article would.

The thing is, I don't think it's solvable. At least not for months and months yet. As long as this is an ongoing event, and as long as there are so many GG supporters who are insistent on creating an article that reflects their views rather than reflects an objective, RS-based take on the issue, then the status quo is going to remain, even if that status quo isn't as good as it could/should be. --PresN 06:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This. The article should be pretty much two paragraphs - one describing it, second summarising it, and then lots of blank space until something actually happens where we can define "Gamergate" outside of the harassment as currently that is pretty much all it is. Koncorde (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Widely accepted opinion is still not fact we need to not present it as such. Halfhat (talk) 10:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Widely accepted reliable sources are as close to "Fact" as you get for wikipedia. This is why there are other "wiki" out there that have lower thresholds for inclusion. Koncorde (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

With some thought you can normally differentiate between opinion and fact. For example if there's no way they could possibly know that "GG is a front for misogyny" it can't be fact so it's opinion. Halfhat (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"With some thought" suggests Original Research or Synthesis. All sources are opinions at the moment, either pro, anti, or comment. You either have them (and the current article in its heinous form) or you don't have them and accept that the article should be very much condensed. One is an aggregate of news, the other is an encyclopedic article. Koncorde (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No all it requires is some comprehension of what the sources are saying. By your logic everything is synthesis other than just saying what others say. It's not coming up with anything new only looking to see if what is stated is opinion or fact. Halfhat (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If we are not saying what they say, then we are synthesising an argument or position, or performing original research. If we are going to present opinion in an article then what they say is the only factual matter we can go by. So the question is - should we be relying on opinion in order to frame an article? Koncorde (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

To addres Tarc's point in Q1 (And I think a few others have said). Yes, one side of GG is clearly a minority , but not FRINGE source; they have influenced large companies. And while the purported purpose of GG is to state that there claimed issues with COI in video game journalism (and to note that some journalists have acknowledged that is true), the larger story from the purposes of Wikipedia are the events that surround this: that there was harassment, that there was press calling them out as misogynistic attacks, and subsequent actions that are still going on. So this is not like saying "oh, the viewpoint of the proGG is FRINGY, we can ignore it", the point here is that in covering the response and actual event, this article in its present state, relying on the clear majority sourcing that is antiGG, is too biased preachy in calling out the antiGG actions and responses (not their view on the ethics question) as "right" and proGG as "wrong", in this case, using excessive quotes and troubling words to point out every "bad" thing that the proGG is doing over and over. We can cover the issue a lot more fairly without giving undue weight to the proGG fringe view without making that side look like villains, simply by paring down the amount of preachy antiGG quotes and viewpoints, as so that WP does not appear to take a side in the issue. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that some companies have responded to gamergate's email campaigns (and generally backtracked when they realized what they'd stepped in) does not prove that the 'but ethics!' angle is not a fringe view. It does not prove that the motivation for those emails was 'ethics' rather than 'punishing people who call us on our misogyny,' and it does not address the problem that our reliable sources are still not treating this as a campaign for ethics in journalism. We base our weighting of the article on what the sources are saying, not on our own evaluation of real world events surrounding the article's subject. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You missed the point. There's the debate over ethics; this would be like the Obama birthers or the 9/11 conspiracies theory aspects, an issue of ideologies. But here we actually have events and responses to those events due to issues with those ideologies that have been extremely confrontational, none which happened in Tarc's list of fringe theories. We're covering an article that involves both an ongoing event and a minority viewpoint on ideologies. If it were possible to eliminate the ideologies and talk only on the events, that's where we have to make sure that us covering the events is as unbiased as possible, and that means we cannot prejudge the intention of the minority side even if the other side already has (we have to work "innocent until proven guilty" for all purposes. And that's not what this article does right now. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

TBH I'm not sure abandoning WP:RS or loosening it to allow what you call the "ProGG" side to be represented would have the effect you are hoping for anyway - it would open the way to people adding their direct impressions of GamerGate and quoting 8chan and the like, which is only going to make them look worse. Artw (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, that's not what I'm asking for; we can't add more about the proGG side, but we can take away from the antiGG side that is more opinion than fact based. A major point to consider - we have no hard evidence that the proGG side - those arguing for ethics - have been the ones that have engaged in harassment/etc., and certainly even less that every proGG user has participated. It's an Occum's Razor argument that some calling themselves as proGG are involved, which is what the press is doing, but that is still their opinion and not a proven fact. As such, we cannot take the side that proGG are "guilty" (in this case, the constant reuse of pointing out the campaign is misogynistic) even if this is the popular opinion of the press. We don't write articles on suspects before their trial if they are guilty even if the press is convinced the person is, we cannot do the same here. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

By treating sources differently depending on whether you see them as supporting a particular POV you're actually arguing for introducing bias into the article, not removing it. Artw (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we're moving a bias that an encyclopedia cannot support. This might be a bias in terms of how the larger story is presented, but as an encyclopedia we are to cover a story as neutrally as possible and that means we might have to skew the coverage when we recognize that coverage is skewed one was (WP:BIAS). Again, if there was a major crime and its suspect was called as guilty by the whole of the press before any official trial, our article that deals with that suspect would not work on the basis they was guilty though we'd certainly mention the press calling them out as such because we need to be neutral. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You are ignoring vast swathes of Wikipedia policy in favour of your personal theory that the coverage is skewed and needs balancing in some way. Artw (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, as an encyclopedia we are not beholden to cover any story. When a story is covered then it is based upon the reliable sources. If the reliable sources do not represent "balance" then that is all we can do, or in fact should do. However it is important that we are neutral about the actual reliable sources in presenting the relevant information. At the moment the article fails there because of its reliance upon opinion to try and define something that cannot define itself. Koncorde (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not the point. We can't cover the proGG in any great detail, that's clear. We however cannot praise one side over the other because the opinion of reliable sources. That's systematic bias. We are supported to be neutral, meaning that we cannot take the position of either side in the argument, and limit our coverage to the facts. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

again with your false dichotomy. There cannot be a "pro-gamergate" "side" when there is no widely accepted defined definition of what "gamergate " is or means. There are lots of accounts using the term, each in their own personal way. The reliable sources have covered the uses they have determined to be noteworthy - the most noteworthy as an ostensible cover for harassing women . Other uses are vaguely covered, mostly as how they are attempting to excuse or divert attention from the harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do dismiss Masem's reply by saying that there cannot be a pro-gamergate side represented in the article when Masem, in the very post you are replying to, states the exact same thing? Masem said that we can't cover the proGG in any great detail, and your counter-argument is that we cannot represent the pro-gamergate side? Thats exactly the same thing. Omegastar (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem was admitting that, not emphasizing it. His point was that, regardless of the proliferation of anti-GamerGate coverage in the reliable media, we should not "praise one side over the other", and that's what TRPoD was disputing. Tezero (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, I realize that oyu want to be fair to both sides, but loife doesn't always work like that. If anything, we have to work to pare down the "pro-GG" prose, since during as in the week-ish full protection we saw a lot of reliable sources come down firmly against the "but ethics" side of this debate. It is a minority point-of-view, and our article needs to reflect that. Tarc (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not the point. Look at every quote that includes the word "misogynistic" (or derivatives), and ask, "are they necessary to understand the fundamentals of the Gamergate controversy?" Some will be, yes, but this would only apply to less than half of the quotes (last I checked). The rest of the times they appear, it is all anti-GG "preachy" side stuff - which is unnecessary. That's what we can trim out and start to fix the tone of the article. --MASEM (t) 00:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If there's editorial reasons be be less word-repetitive, that's fine, although care should be take not to dilute too much of the content. Tarc (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not the repetition of the word, it is the repetition of the same basic opinion (that the proGG side is misogynistic, in this case) when that repetition does not further the factual summary of this article; the additional quote is simply there to bolster the antiGG side's stance as the right one. We are going to have to mention misogyny in a few places in the factual discussion of the case - that the press saw it that way, and the proGG responded with both #NotYourShield and with OperationDisrespectful nod. But that's it. More than half the other uses of the word appears in quotes that are simply attack quotes that, were the proGG a singular named person, would edge on BLP issues. Obviously that doesn't fall under BLP, but then there is also common sense that there are still real people behind the proGG side that aren't part of the harassment but that because of how we've structured this article assigns the blame on them. We should be handling this as clinically as possible. Someone above (can't find immediately) made the good point that at this stage of the development of Gamergate we should not be attempting to apply analysis to it this soon, and instead wait for distant-enough sources that can look back, evaluate all the events as they happen, and then make more rational, less emotional decisions. Instead, and I've had friends that are proGG tell me this as well as checking through the usual proGG forums that they are insulted by the tone this article takes. They don't deny that their cause is called misgynistic - they know that stigma exists and there are actually efforts to try to present a better front that clearly denounces any harassment (which they are trying to oust and identify who did it when it happens, and have claimed to track down many of the more recent cases to pure trolling groups that are simply there to stir the shit), but our article is written in a tone that prosecutes them for just being tied to the proGG side, when there has been no solid conviction of the responsible parties. We cannot take the side the press is taking here, though we can present the press's viewpoint as clearly the most predominate. --MASEM (t) 07:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think people should read WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:YESPOV And WP:STRUCTURE as well Retartist (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is what this article really needs. More discussion on bias. We've come so far, just a few more thousand fucking words and we'll have cracked the case! Protonk (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I did get a good laugh Seriouslyonlyusernameleft (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Lets sort out the introduction once and for all

I'd say the introduction suffers from the most bias problems and needs to be addressed. To prevent edit warring I say we start this section to decide how to go about making it as objective as possible, with as little loaded language as possible Halfhat (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Introduction? How about the entire article. This article has been gone about in entirely the wrong way. Anybody writing an article like this needs to take a massive step back when doing so. By all means write about a particular point of view, but don't carry on about it. For example:

"However, Gamergate has become most notable for a series of misogynistic and violent threats and harassment targeting Quinn and other prominent women in gaming, which have drawn widespread condemnation of the movement"

Now, who says this is the case? From the looks of it the author. Certainly depending on who you ask you will get mixed responses on this, some would agree with that, others including myself would disagree. Take a step back, by all means state there are accusations of misogyny, but importantly say who is making them. The author making an opinionated claim like that would not be tolerated on any other article and I see no reason at all to make an exception. —Frosty ☃ 11:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

When multiple non-video games publications are all saying "misogyny" and "violent threats" then that's notability.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, it's a verifiable fact that the movement is most notable for its harassment issues. This is trivial to demonstrate through a brief Google News search of "Gamergate." Reliable, mainstream sources focus almost exclusively on the harassment issues and basically ignore the ethics claims. The New York Times, MSNBC, etc. didn't write stories about someone's ethical concerns in journalism — they wrote stories about women in video games being harassed and threatened out of their homes. The harassment issues dramatically overshadow any and all points Gamergate might have once been interested in making, and have resulted in widespread condemnation and rejection of the movement in mainstream sources. Just about every mainstream source on the issue concludes "Gamergate is fatally tainted by harassment and anti-feminism." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, why are we saying that the allegations against Quinn were "proven" false, when the only sources say that Stephen Totilo, Grayson's boss, said he didn't find any wrongdoing? I'm not saying we need to question his account, but acting as if his word is objective fact isn't neutral. There's also no mention of Grayson being listed in Depression Quest credits or his admission to having been a tester for the game. Agent Chieftain (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We've been over this a lot, but we're saying that they were proven false because all of the sources (including Breitbart) have been describing them that way. Grayson didn't write about Quinn when in a relationship with her, so there is no doubt about the issue.

No reliable source has covered Depression Quest's credits, and I'm going to make the guess that none will - it simply isn't an issue. Accordingly, we can't cover it. - Bilby (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Depression Quest is a reliable source when it comes to its own credits where as a newspaper can only be a secondary source when no journalist was present. Andrew Swallow (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue is how much weight we should give it. At the moment no WP:RS cares about the credits so we don't include it in this article. Strongjam (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The lead is currently too biased in favor of Gamergate sources, which are effectively a fringe POV. The entire first paragraph is basically a hand-waiving apology from a pro-gamergate POV. It effectively says "Yes, there was some harassment, but that was only from a 'minority', and wait, we have real concerns but for some reason the mainstream media won't listen to us!" Gamergate was an online lynch mob. There's no reason we have to whitewash that just because the mob has suddenly discovered Wikipedia and doesn't like being called a mob. Kaldari (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the first paragraph to an older version. I am not aware of consensus for that bloated mess which essentially shoved down anti-GG rhetoric down readers' throats instead of concisely and neutrally describing the situation. It's the first paragraph in the lead. You can mention sexism and misogyny (like it already is now) but overall it should be a quick summary. If it is to be expanded we should have consensus. starship.paint ~ regal 14:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not "anti-Gamergate rhetoric". It's an accurate summary of what has happened. There is never going to be any way to cast a positive light on the Gamergate movement. The version of the lead that explains that women have left their homes and that the media does not acknowledge Gamergate's goals as being sincere or ever feasibly realized in 3 months time should be restored rather than constantly dilutin the article to satisfy a contingent that will never be happy until it's heavily biased in their way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention that the RFC is full of new editors complaning almost exclusively about this sterile and short lead paragraph that they all say is biased in favor of the pro-Gamergate side because it gives their "it's also about ethics in journalism" meme prevalence.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I counted exactly one new (and zero old) editor doing so since my last post. Unless they complained before I even made the edit, I don't see how you can say it's "full of new editors". Anyway, the women fleeing their homes is already in the second paragraph of the lead. Unless anyone is physically harmed or attacked, I do not think it warrants mention in the very first paragraph of the lead. The rest of the stuff you're talking about, you can discuss to include it in the second/third paragraph of the lead. starship.paint ~ regal 23:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I meant editors new to the content dispute. Not brand new editors on the site.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no misunderstanding, I counted only Sandstein. starship.paint ~ regal 02:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps he's the only one raising issues about the lead, but Kaldari, Cuchullain, Slverseren, CIreland, and Robofish all seem to have issues with how the pro-GG POV is being over-presented.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Me too! The recent coverage of "what is gamergate" is that it is ostensibly some vague allegations or complaints being used as a cover for a trollfest of harassment and terrorism. We are FAR from being in sync with such descriptions with FAR too much time and validity given to these "ostensibles" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The introduction does need a bit more text for non-gamers. What is GamerGate? Which side are GamerGate supporters on? And what do they support. What is pro-GG and what is anti-GG - which side is "misogynist"? All this is obvious to those that already understand, but they won't need to read the article. I suggest a few sentences that make sense to someone that has no background knowledge of the affair. Simongarrett (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers on Gamergate

Video Willhesucceed (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Mmm, CHSommers does it again. --The Defender of Light Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing >Inventory< 09:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you stop pasting links to this page like it's KotakuInAction already? Present information found in these links that you want to be incorporated into the article for once FFS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What does "FFS" mean? AnyyVen (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Google can answer many questions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The answer took two fewer words. AnyyVen (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

People have been upset that I used the actual word. Are abbreviations off limits now too?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of being upset, personally I couldn't care less, it's when you violate WP:CIVIL by pointing those words towards people that Wikipedia should take notice Loganmac (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes. Replacing offensive words with abbreviations that most readers recognize as the offensive words means that the message you bring in your comment is no different than if you were to use the full words. For example, telling someone to 'STFU' is just as uncivil as actually spelling out the words.Omegastar (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

To get back to the topic, what exactly do you propose to add or change based on the above video, Willhesucceed? There's already as section on Sommers' support for Gamergate. Does the above video add to or contradict anything in there? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Her opinion on feminism should be noted seeing she's an expert on the topic, and we'll see if any articles cover this to gather more info. But Willhesucceed you should really recommend what to include. And although Ryulong yet again proves his behaviour and uncivility (and yet again no admin does anything) you should propose ideas Loganmac (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't this the only actual source made by a scholar/academic? Retartist (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Her proclamation of being their "mom" now makes things questionable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That term was not coined by her. We have been referring to her as "based mom" for a while now Retartist (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Scholars can't joke now Loganmac (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It does mean she's taken a side when neutrality is what you all have been striving for.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

She's taken the side of what she personally believes is reasonable based on academic evidence and studying the matter. Loganmac (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

She's taken a side that arguably shares her views on third wave feminism.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that she is an expert in feminism, although her strong anti-feminist stance is an issue when using her writings. However, she isn't an expert in gaming and gaming culture, so we need to be a bit more cautious there. At any rate, in listening to the video, I can't find much we can use in this article unless we want to provide more coverage of Sommers' opinions, and I don't see much value in taking that path. - Bilby (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"she isn't an expert in gaming and gaming culture"... That's OK, almost nobody else cited in this article is either.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Her views on gaming shouldn't be included but her views on what she calls a misrepresentation based on sexism and misogny should be expanded on. And add something when sources cover her if she hasn't been blacklisted already Loganmac (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The two are intrinsically connected, given that she is talking about sexism in gaming, and her views on sexism and feminism have generally been regarded as extreme. We already have most of a full paragraph and a photo of her - there doesn't seem to be anything substantial that we can add from the video unless there is a specific suggestion to consider, and I'm worried about giving her opinions too much weight. - Bilby (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

She's an expert on feminism like Ken Ham is an expert on evolution. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you're mistaking this for the comments section of one of the Gawker sites? This is Wikipedia. We're supposed to be discussing how to improve the article, with as much civility as can be mustered given this contentious topic. Snark for its own sake is contributing nothing to this process. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think an accurate assessment of Somners is complex. I've seen some of her videos. She's got a strong grasp of research methodology and brings it to bear on the issues. She expresses a bias, but it's not a hard one - mainly she cites weak research methods as her reasoning to disagree with conclusions, and the social sciences are notorious for flubby research. It's due to how we can't do many direct empirical studies of the brain yet since we can't watch it function in action. The entire reason she's called an anti-feminist is because... well... she questions the studies - and if the studies are not to be questioned at all, then it's nothing more than a hokey pseudoscience. Fact is, biased or not, she does discuss and understand the material at the level of an expert to the point where you'd need to be on her degree of knowledge to proactively dispute with her. She claims she's a feminist. It seems unfair to say she isn't an expert on her subject just because she has conservative leanings. YellowSandals (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Iamcuriousblue: Do you have a substantive comment on the issue? EvergreenFir has made a valid point with an analogy. Do you doubt what was said? Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that piece of snark rises to the level of "substantive comment". I also think you and EvergreenFir might do well to reacquaint yourself with WP:CIVIL, because it impresses me that EvergreenFir is not even making an attempt to stay within the bounds of it. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I like how after attacks, this treeperson goes and does a WikiLove edit. kek --The Defender of Light Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing >Inventory< 09:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing incivil about my comment. I made an analogy about Sommer's qualifications. See my comment below. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not Sommers is a feminist is irrelevant. She has a long history of being noteworthy in discussions of gender, including feminism. That's all that matters. Willhesucceed (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Sadly correct. My point is she's no an expert on feminism, but she is notable. The question is if she's WP:FRINGE. Academically she is, but for this article probably not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is Somners not an expert on Feminism? She holds a PhD in philosophy and is a former professor, and she displays her chops when she talks about the research methods. Disagreeing with the methods used to acquire data doesn't mean someone isn't an expert in the thing they question - in the sciences, in fact, a researcher is usually seen as a hack if they aren't critical of their own methodology and the methodology of others. It's a core aspect of proper academics, and it's somewhat telling of tone that Somners' criticism somehow invalidates her expertise. Like I say, she expresses biases, but can you dispute the things she's saying? I can't, but that's because, in spite of understanding how methodology is evaluated, I lack the breadth of knowledge to actually argue toe to toe with someone like Somners.

In this video linked here, she points out that Anita Sarkeesian is using social models that originate from nearly four decades ago. She specifically cites the study and explains how that theory has evolved since that time. Like it or not, Somners approaches this topic as an expert. If it's true that Anita really is using outdated theories from the mid seventies, then perhaps a fairly critical expert since it means Anita is being disruptive to the entire field of study when people think of her as a scholar. If you wanted to refute what Somners is saying, you'd need someone with as much background in this subject to actually discuss it. That's what it means to be an expert in a field. YellowSandals (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I should point that scientific discussion isn't meant to be determined by popular opinion. Your most crucial factor is methodology which can be repeated under peer review, which consistently produces the same results. Although there may be popular academic theories taught in classes now, if those aren't peer reviewed and happen to merely be the pet theories of the researchers teaching the classes, they amount to a lot of hogwash. Expensive hogwash for the students paying to learn them. I think you don't understand how valuable it is to have scathing cynics in the scientific community. They don't always make many friends, but they're essential, and they are experts. YellowSandals (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a valid debate in the literature about whether or not Sommers is a feminist, but there's no reason to extend that to questioning her credentials on the topic. That said, the topic she is discussing is gaming culture, not feminism, and expertise in feminism does not necessarily extend to expertise in gaming culture. Thus we need to be cautious about accepting her self-published comments about gaming culture as more than opinion. - Bilby (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

People in academia arguing over validity of their theories and methodologies is commonplace, and is hardly evidence of someone "being disruptive to the entire field of study." To use an example I'm familiar with, grounded theory has been the subject of internecine warfare practically from the moment it gained common currency, as its originators split over methodological disputes shortly thereafter and there are now two schools of thought in GT. This doesn't mean that either the Glaser or Strauss & Corbin schools are disrupting data analysis studies — it just means there's different opinions. And now I'm having bad flashbacks to graduate school so I'm going to stop. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Anita considered an expert on gaming or Feminism by Wikipedia? The reason why Somner's criticism is meaningful to this debate is because Somners is suggesting that Anita, and in fact perhaps a number of the Feminist experts involved in this controversy, actually aren't experts at all. There's a difference between having your own avenues of research versus citing forty year-old research that has seen been drastically altered by updated studies. Again, you guys keep saying there's no valid ethical complaints, but if these people are impersonating experts while demonstrating a very poor grasp of the contemporary material just so they can stir up ad-clicks and donations, the ethics are bonkers. For that matter, is there such a thing as a gaming expert? That would be someone in the industry who makes games, right? But that doesn't describe Anita either. YellowSandals (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian is in the article because she has been widely reported as a target of harassment related to Gamergate, not because she's being used as an expert on gaming or feminism. Strongjam (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Also because her commentary on gaming and gaming culture have gotten far more attention from reliable sources. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just bring it up because there have been numerous complaints that parties requesting neutrality have been "POV pushers". Just try to understand that if some people involved in this controversy are setting back the public perception of gender research by forty years, it might not be wise to write the article as though there are good guys and bad guys, and nor should you assume everyone with concerns of neutrality is strictly working against you. YellowSandals (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree that she is an expert on the topic of feminism, it is worth keeping in mind that she is also strongly opposed to the stance taken by most feminists, and many have argued that she is anti-feminism. Accordingly, when she suggests that a feminist has set the movement back 40 years, based on an interpretation of a single line, through a self-published commentary uploaded onto YouTube, I'm inclined to take that with a grain of salt.

At any rate, the point is probably moot. We're not looking at critical analysis of Sarkeesian here, and Sommers isn't saying anything additional about GG that is useful for the article. - Bilby (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is some coverage of it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

GameJournoPros article

I thought everyone should know that an article on GameJournoPros was created yesterday and is already at AfD. It's primarily based on SPS, which is bad. I removed an unsourced listing of people allegedly on the GameJournoPros list, but there are still a number of negative claims and insinuations regarding living persons. We've discussed the topic in depth here, and according to our Talk and the BLP noticeboard the consensus was to remove mention of GameJournoPros from this article, but obviously that is another article. I'll probably be cutting out any BLP infringing material soon unless someone else beats me to it. Woodroar (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a mistake to not even mention GameJournosPro in this article. For the reader coming to this issue for the first time, it's a pretty glaring omission. There appear to be a great many reliable sources which discuss the GameJournosPro accusation so that even if you don't think a mailing list where journalists discuss how to coordinate their coverage is an ethics problem (I make no comment on that as my personal opinion on that isn't relevant in this context) there is no question that the accusations are notable and an important part of this overall story.

I tend to agree that a separate article for it is not warranted - it's a part of this story and should be here. Please discuss. (And I don't think the previously closed discussion is sufficient reason to not discuss it again as it was closed before the publication of some important sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt that it will need to be covered in some way, at some point. However, while the list was interesting, it has so far been a non-issue, as nothing significant has come out of it. There have been a few claims of it being used to coordinate coverage, but as far as I'm aware none have managed to stand up to independent scruitiny, unless someone is aware of material I may have missed. So the wording is likely to be brief, and very cautious given the risk of BLP problems. - Bilby (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I was about to propose something here, but I scoured the Internet and basically haven't found any real, independent reliable sources discussing the issue. What we have are a couple GG-linked people on unreliable sources saying "GJP is massive evidence of collusion!" and the people on the list saying "Well, no, it wasn't." There isn't anyone originally disconnected from the debate who's weighed in. As far as mainstream sources are concerned, it's a nothingburger. So coming up with anything substantive is difficult at best. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Some gaming journalists discussed issues relating to their jobs on a private mailing list called GameJournoPros. After some e-mails from the list were leaked, supporters of GamerGate accused its members of using the list to collude with each other on GamerGate-related topics. List members stated that their conversations were freewheeling, often involved disagreement and had fostered professional conduct. The list's owner, Kyle Orland, apologized for an e-mail suggesting that reviewers pay attention to Zoe Quinn's game, but noted that his suggestion had been rejected by other members which, he said, "disproves" the allegations of collusion and "shows the independent spirit of those who participate in the group." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We're talking about the allegations that journalist colluded on a private mailing list, allegations that were quickly debunked? I thought this had been in the article all along, but hmm, I do not see it now. I think it is worth mention, if only to note that is it one of several failed criticisms. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The criticisms were not "debunked" but "denied". "Debunked" is a success verb that implies more than simple denial. Having looked at the leaked emails, I would say that the allegations of collusion are largely and obviously true. So there's not really any justification for us to go further than "denied".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It would seem to be original research for us to inject our opinions of what particular subsets of leaked e-mails mean or don't mean. I've also looked at the leaked e-mails and saw a wide range of opinions on the various issues, and disagree with your interpretation that there was "collusion" in regards to GamerGate. What I saw was one person with a bad idea (the "letter of support") and a number of other people who told that person they had a bad idea and would not participate. There aren't any reliable sources really addressing the issue, as I noted above. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Precisely my point - it would be original research for us to declare that the emails were "debunked" as there are - as you say - a range of opinions about that. We should stick with the milder "denied" - there is an easy consensus that they were denied.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, the Pen & Pencil Club is a venue for journalists in Philadelphia area to get together, talk about issues relating to their profession and whatnot. It has existed since 1892. This mailing list was just a modern version of that and countless others across the nation. "Collusion" among journalists implies is a very loaded word that implies a coordinated intent to manipulate and deceive public opinion on a particular subject. There was no evidence of that whatsoever, so I'm sorry, but "debunked" is rather correct. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Your own opinions of journalistic standards, and mine, are not particularly relevant here. Unless you have an uninvolved third party source saying "debunked" then we should stick with what the sources all do say, which is that the claims of collusion were denied.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc, in that my feeling is that we would need something very strong to justify saying that journalists "colluded". In reading the relevant emails, what I see is a group of journalists in agreement, but not colluding per se. Generally they seem to feel that the issues regarding Quinn are a private matter being used to shame her, and therefore they are individually unwilling to touch it as they don't see it as game-related news. There's some discussion about whether the community should be discussing it on their site's forums, and some questions about where the line should be drawn on coverage, but it all seems fairly tame.

To draw a comparison - if a group of editors on the talk page of a WP article discuss whether or not to include allegations of an affair in a BLP, and decide that it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BLP, are they colluding to leave it out or are they simply in agreement that they should leave it out? There is an issue of perspective, but I'm going to assume the latter unless there's some very strong sources supporting the former. - Bilby (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should not say that journalists colluded. We should stick to what there is clearly no doubt about, and not insert our own editorializing. We know that there were accusations of collusion (as reported in reliable sources) and that there were denials of collusion (also reported in reliable sources). It is unwise for us to take a side.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

My understanding was that you nominated a side, when you said that the allegations of collusion are largely and obviously true. I'm glad that this is not the case. - Bilby (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

My opinion - or that of anyone here - is only important insofar as we all come to the facts with no bias and a clear head in order to understand clearly what reliable sources have said. When people put forward words like "debunked" - a rather bold claim that goes far beyond the sources - it's important to point out that such a word shocks the sensibilities of anyone who has read the sources and the leaked emails. What we clearly have is an accusation and a denial. I don't know of anyone serious (who is not implicated in the collusion) who would say that it's been "debunked".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It is true that the accusations have not been debunked, as accusations such as these can't be. The accusations have also not been substantiated, as there is no way to prove that they are true. In the end, it is simply a matter of perspective. Which is unfortunate for those involved - they can be accused of collusion, but have no means of disproving it. This makes me the cautions as to how it should be covered. I'm happy with Rulong's additions, though, as they are the best we can do with a difficult problem. I am, however, always wary of providing too much weight to accusations made by highly biased sources that can't be proven or adequately defended against. - Bilby (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's important to remember the difference between types of evidence. It's clear that the journalists on the list are in contact - networking is an important part of the industry, after all. Accusations of collusion are based on the circumstance that the journalists are all in contact with each other as well as a few other details. It's what you'd call circumstantial evidence, which, in courts of law, tends only to result in convictions when there is an overwhelming amount of it. For the sake of an encyclopedia, a discussion of circumstantial evidence would need to be handled very carefully and there would need to be some clear, expressed exposition on it from reliable sources. YellowSandals (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that Jimbo is referring to the Destructoid issues, as there has been some lobbying to cover that in WP. My feeling so far is that the GameJournosPro connection to that issue is minor at best - the most that can be claimed is that there was a request for advice on the list, and there may have been a recommendation not to hire someone. (I'm being a bit cautious here, as there have been attempts to draw conclusions from some recent events, none of which are directly related to GG). This particular issue is something that I don't think we should touch, simply because the only connection to GG is that questions were asked on the GameJournosPro list. Other issues might warrant a mention where they are more closely connected to GG. - Bilby (talk)

I'm not familiar with these Destructoid issues... is there a good source? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

CinemaBlend has something: [1]. - Bilby (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've written this up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You cite Kain for his opinion about collusion, but don't note his statements about members of the list trying to pressure The Escapist's editor-in-chief into shutting down discussion of allegations against Quinn? We should mention what allegations have been made about the list where we have good sources on it rather than cherry-picking the sources or statements that say there is no collusion. Orland's statement on the matter, in particular, is very much a conflicted opinion seeing as he created the list and would naturally be inclined to defend himself and the list. While I can understand people want less space for mentioning this, it should be representative of all coverage, not just the coverage favorable to those saying there was nothing wrong with the list. Destructoid's Editor-in-Chief resigned, for heaven's sake, and I think that at least warrants a mention.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TDA and Jimbo. Can we work out the text to add, or do we need to go the RfC route? Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

TDA, I referred to it but did not spell out the exact details. It's either all or nothing so I guess you want nothing right now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This was just trimmed out by kaciemonster and I agree w/ the general goal of slimming these things down. If we want Kain, or any other source, for additional claims we should be clear about what we're saying and make sure that we don't have a series of sentences which serve mostly to reinforce previous ones. I don't have an objection to mentioning the destructoid resignation or (possibly) the escapist bit, but we should be careful to make sure that our reaction doesn't mirror the reaction the world had to Journolist--which is to say that we mistake hue and cry for actual malfeasance (as we're sort of doing with the Gawker/Intel stuff). Protonk (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The above text from TDA misrepresents Kain's description of the issue. Kain states that Kuchera urges Tito to shut down The Escapist forum where the discussion of Quinn was occurring, but Tito refuses, arguing that a place for discussion is a healthy thing. 1) Kuchera is the only person quoted as doing this and 2) If we define "pressure" as "any time someone suggests a different course of action," we render that word meaningless. Thus, describing this exchange as a cabal conspiracy, rather than an instance of two professionals disagreeing with each other, seems to be, at best, stretching the truth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see Kain only mentions one name. Fudge's piece discusses his role in it as well. Kain does seem to allude to there being more than one person when stating "Tito writes in response to Kuchera and others, 'but I don’t know if the answer is to delete the thread. The Escapist is not giving harassment a home, but allowing civil discussion on a matter that people are emotional about.'" If you saw the e-mails you would know there were at least three members who actively pushed for Tito to close the thread.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Do we want this shit covered or not?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that the section you've added on the list is really good, and I have no complaints at all, and it is very nicely worded. But I don't feel that we should include the Destructoid issue. Blacklisting someone can be illegal, and the accusation is that the editor may have acted illegally through his email to the list, and for that we need a better source and more to go on than the interpretation of his comment being offered. In regard to the editor quitting, there has been no statement as to whether or not it is connected to GG or the list, but some people are reading that into it based on the timing. - Bilby (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I did mistake the conversation going on here as desiring its coverage in the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That's cool - I think you did a terrific job on the section, though. Nicely balanced. - Bilby (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It's quite nice. It doesn't take a stand on anything, just reports what the relevant parties have said in reliable sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the Destructoid issue should be included, but I do think Ryulong's version was a bit too direct and certain. When I added the section in my latest epic Leeroy Jenkins edit it was phrased as follows: "Following reports that the list had discussed the firing of a journalist at Destructoid and potentially having him blacklisted with other outlets, the editor-in-chief, Dale North resigned from his position at the outlet." To me saying there were reports that the list discussed potentially having him blacklisted adds sufficient uncertainty and avoids linking to any single person. Perhaps you would prefer that phrasing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I know you might think I'm the last person that'd defend a Destructoid writer but isn't that a little BLP violation? Acussing someone of blacklisting is a serious claim and is downright illegal, should we sourced way better Loganmac (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you think of a way we can phrase it so that it is less of a problem. Do you think my wording was sufficient?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Lets try to defuse this

One of the problems is that this is becoming increasingly polarized nature of the debate here, much like GamerGate itself, this helps cause edit wars and makes consensus much harder. Most of us could've probably done better here, I know I could have. I think something needs done, here are some rules I think we should adopt, tell me your thoughts :).Halfhat (talk)

• Try to be polite Just try to be as polite as you can, just try to complementary and phrase things as nicely as you can it'll help.

• Don't accuse If you think someone is breaking the rules report them or leave a 'polite' note on their talk page, don't go around here going "You agenda pushing SPA". It helps no one.

• Don't insult Much like above it helps no one don't go around saying "You SJWs are. . . ." it really helps no one and just drags people into debates.

• Apologize If you slip up apologize, it doesn't take long and helps remove bad blood.

• If you revert a revert, make a talk section Instead of going into an edit war, if you contest a revert create a talk section so you can discuss the issue, and have others look at it.

• Pause before you post Before posting just make yourself take a second to think "Will this benefit the article?".

• Consider your bias I suspect most of us here care about the topic, and there's a good chance you have some personal and probably strong opinion of it. You don't need to state it, just keep it in the back of your mind.

Thanks for reading Halfhat (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I just don't even think it needs to be so volatile here that this sort of thing is even necessary to begin with. I've not tried to be anything other than polite but responses all over the talk pages are not polite, are accusatory, are biased without the intention of providing reason for that bias. Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC) (part 1 of 2 of original comment)

Something went wrong here; I did not write this.-- Swim Jonse (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

it came in via this edit [2] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is letting children edit this article. Lord of the Flies children, no less. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Willhesucceed: you have been told a number of times that you may not use this page to vent your spleen against other editors, particularly making thinly veiled accusations. Strike your comment and watch your tongue in the future. This article is under special sanctions that allow administrators to act quickly to such continued tendentious editing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Says the guy who's regularly harassed me on this page. Apparently the rules only apply when when it benefits you. Willhesucceed (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, referring to some editors as "Lord of the Flies children" is unproductive, off-topic, and at direct odds with the message of the section that you decided to post it in. Halfhat's suggestions were good, maybe consider taking them to heart. Kaciemonster (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guys looks like I messed something up.Halfhat (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

semantic issue: controversy or movement

The introduction says gamergate is a "controversy", but in the body there are references to "#GamerGate movement" and even "GamerGater". I honestly don't know which it is. It's a nebulous enough conversation that it is already hard to define the sides, but I honestly can't even tell if a "GamerGater" is someone who objects to women commenting on games, or someone who objects to misogynistic expression.

Galexander (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The nebulous nature of the whole thing makes it hard for media to describe and not something we can really fix here. Strongjam (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a Gamergate movement and a controversy around that movement. The movement itself is not notable by itself, but the controversy it created is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that it's not really stated which side is the gg side and which is the anti. It may be worth adding "purported (by Gamergate supporters)" or similar to define it.TuxedoMonkey (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we could call the article "Gamergate (video gaming)" (which aligns with video game terminology like Boss (video gaming)) and thus say in the lead that "GG is the name of both a movement and the controversy surrounding the movement that..." --MASEM (t) 20:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Or we can argue that the ant isn't the primary use anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

My past observations on naming schemes is that something like a standardized scientific term is always going to win out over a pop culture thing, regardless of predominace of sources. (see, for example that Avatar the film is the one disambiguated over as aspect of a religious faith.) But using (video gaming) would allow us to be clear the article is about the interconnected movement and controversy in the lead. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The only reason this article is ostensibly about the controversy and not the movement is because very little information sourced from the movement's advocates has yet to be published anywhere, or if it has, was not deemed verifiable by some editors. I have no doubt that this will change soon once information is allowed to disseminate while advocates are given the chance to defend the movement in the mainstream media, and that is one place where we will be able to extrapolate something more concrete.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I see it as a hashtag with a movement supporting it and a controversy around it. The movement itself is much harder to cover than the sources with RS Halfhat (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

whatever you may see, the reliable sources dont. they see harassment and a bunch of incoherent and false claims surrounding it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The current article title is succinct and descriptive of the whats & the whys of "Gamergate". This article is about the controversy over legions of anonymous gamers harassing a variety of people, beginning with Zoe Quinn and continuing on with mostly female journalists who criticized the anonymous acts. "Gamergate" is not primarily about ethics in gamer journalism; its secondary nature does not justify a move away from the present title. Tarc (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Mostly female journalists? Only one i can think of is leigh alexander. I thought most of the journalists were male? Retartist (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Didn't Jenn Frank quit due to the backlash of whatever she did that I can't remember?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

iirc Mattie Brice stepped back for a while but changed her mind when she realized quitting didn't stop the abuse. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Jenn Frank wrote an article September 1 about how gg is all about misogyny, wrote an article September 11 announcing retirement, then wrote another (unrelated) article on the 19th. I think she's stayed retired after that.TuxedoMonkey (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Incredible bias

WP:DROPTHESTICK; Discuss this is the many other sections above. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As someone who had hoped to learn more about the roots of the "Gamergate controversy", I came to this article, as Wikipedia is usually a great source for unbiased information, and is kept up pretty well. With that being said, I have never been more ashamed as a defender of Wikipedia after reading this article... the bias is dripping through in almost every paragraph, in everything from the broad generalizations of gamer culture to the description of the term "social justice warriors" as "a derogatory term for people in the video-game industry who use the medium to talk about political issues". It is clear even to me that large passages of this were written by people with very little knowledge of "gamer culture" and additionally, people with a clear agenda. I don't edit articles often, so as someone with an outside perspective, I'd say this needs almost a total re-write. But that's just my two cents. Beachdude42 01:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachdude42 (talk • contribs) As someone who has edited Wikipedia, like yourself, you should be fully aware that Wikipedia is only written based on what can be verified in reliable sources, and at the current point of history, when this is a subject that is barely 2 months old, this is how the world at large (BBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Verge, etc.) all view the goings on of Gamergate. It is not the fault of Wikipedia that a leaderless movement whose only standard for membership is typing "#gamergate" in a tweet or other social media post is not best represented in the press, when they only have the actions of a highly vocal minority, of at least what is now being recognized as trolls, existing within the group to further goals and agendas. Wikipedia editors cannot write any articles from personal experience, which is why it reads like someone who is completely separated from gamer culture has written it. That is at its best neutrality. Someone with no vested or personal interest in a topic writing about it. You are free to edit the article to address concerns, but be aware that the artcle is currently under general sanctions to deal with large torrents of users who are only here to push an agenda or point of view on the page to detract from people doing their best to adhere to the neutral point of view policy, particularly its rules on not giving undue weight to minority view points that are not addressed in reliable sources or regarded by the public at large as correct.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC) I understand that, but I feel there are enough common goals shared among MOST members of the Gamergate "movement" that the movement itself deserves larger weight in the article than it currently has compared to the backlash against it. Beachdude42 02:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC) Do you have a different reliably-sourced definition of "social justice warrior" that you'd like to propose? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC) I tend to agree that the bit that mentions the term "Social Justice Warrior" isn't great: it's one of many sections of the article that have suffered from a kind of 'quote creep,' where tendentious opposition to anything that is seen as in some way 'anti-gamergate' eventually results in editors using direct quotes from single sources rather than simply using the sources to write cohesive prose. -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC) Its a sad day when Encyclopedia Dramatica, not even Uncyclopedia, but ED, has a less biased, more accurate depiction of the memeings. --The Defender of Light Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing >Inventory< 02:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC) Couldn't agree more, that article actually DOES give a better summary than this article does. Sad. Beachdude42 02:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachdude42 (talk • contribs) These aren't "memeings," these are actual serious events which impact real people's lives. That we treat these issues as such and not as targets for cheap lulz is to Wikipedia's credit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What counts as a reliable source and what isn't?

Apparently only sources that describe GamerGate as misogynistic counts is "reputable" all of a sudden. (Redacted)Kotaku becomes "unreliable" when it describes a syringe being sent to a pro GamerGate writer. Slate counts as reputable but Reason doesn't. Salon counts as reputable but Breitbart doesn't. New York Mag counts as reliable but TechCrunch doesn't. Why is this? What determines what is reliable and what isn't? Only sources that describe GamerGate as misogynistic? Sy9045 (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Short answer is that WP:RS and WP:RSN decide. If there's contention about a specific source, it should be brought to WP:RSN, but check the archives using the search feature for past discussions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Past discussions are here and here. Seems to be questions about editorial oversight. The about page doesn't give much info on that front. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. But you've been reading Reddit wrong. I have not said that Kotaku became unreliable when it covered Milo's syringe. I said that the coverage in the Kotaku article does not reflect proper due weight for being something of note to mention on this article because it's a one sentence correction rather than any sort of real focus. (Redacted)—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop questioning my motives and stop insulting me. I haven't been reading "Reddit" to form my opinions. There is no objectivity here whatsoever. Slate and Salon are quoted profusely while other articles that talk about journalistic standards in game reviews are stifled. Multiple sources that report on the syringe incident is not sufficient while sourcing content from one single opinion piece is justified apparently. Even Wikipedia's very own Jimmy Wales says it's "obvious" there was collusion involved in game reviews. This page has been a huge embarrassment to the Wikipedia community. No attempts at objectivity whatsoever.Sy9045 (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Slate and Salon are non-gaming media looking from the outside in so out of everyone they would be most objective in examining the controversy. And there are not "multiple sources" reporting on the syringe incident. Three different publications list single sentence discussions of the syringe as having existed, and two of those sources are simply updates to already published pieces. In my opinion, such a minor level of discussion on what would by all means be a big thing, seems to say that it's an unimportant footnote in the greater subject that is what this article is about.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

And you think TechCrunch, Breitbart, and Reason are devoted gaming media and aren't "looking from the outside in"? Really? The arbitrary definitions for what count as "reliable" and what doesn't is perplexing to say the least. You cite opinion pieces from one single article, but turn around and insist that multiple sources citing something is irrelevant because lengthy essays aren't being written about it. I say there is more of a political agenda going on here and objectivity has taken a back seat. I can't believe Wikipedia has devolved into this.Sy9045 (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Techcrunch has weak editorial control. Brietbart is a 'news' site best known for publishing outright lies to discredit political enemies. Reason is, iirc, mainly used for opinion sources, but I'm not sure what source you're talking about so I couldn't tell you for sure what the issue is there. But basically, if most sources that give pro-gamergate perspectives are not considered reliable, it's not necessarily a sign that editors are not evaluating sources fairly. Couldn't it also be a sign that reliable sources are not saying the kinds of things that gamergate would like this article to say? -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Where is your proof that TechCrunch has weaker editorial control than Slate or Salon? Where is your proof that Breitbart "lies" and Salon and Slate don't? The burden of proof is on you. Why are Reason opinion pieces not qualified but opinion pieces from Slate or Salon fine? What concrete rules should we use to determine what's "reliable" and what isn't? Is it just based on what one feels like?Sy9045 (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, I am not saying that these websites are not reliable sources. Except Breitbart. Breitbart is not a reliable source. What I am saying is that for the level of coverage dedicated to the syringe in Kotaku, TechCrunch, and Reason, it is not a significant event to cover.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I really do not understand. Why is Slate and Salon "reliable" but Breitbart not? What rules or parameters are you using to determine that?Sy9045 (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You can see why Breitbart is not a reliable source by looking at the article on them here. They have outright lied about what they've written and manipulated the evidence to suit their agenda.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you just straight up cite a Wikipedia page to justify them not being reliable? There are a total of 6 controversies on that page. If you look at the New York Times page, there are 7. As far as I know 7 is greater than 6. Should we remove all sources from the New York Times now? Do you see how ridiculous that would be? Anyway, citing Wikipedia is the clumsiest and weakest proof I've ever seen. Please show me concrete scientific proof that Breitbart is not as reliable as any of the other sources that are being cited as "reliable". You made the claim, now prove it. I'll wait.Sy9045 (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not just Ryulong's claim or mine. That's the firm and established consensus. If you'd like to contest it the next step is to ask at WP:RSN. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is just untrue. I checked the archives and there are differing opinions on it, including differing opinions on the New York Times, MSNBC, and Slate. I would love for you to show me where the "consensus" was established on Breitbart because I couldn't find it.Sy9045 (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You can search the archives if you like, you'll see a large number of editors saying the same thing. WP:RSN. That's your next step if you want to appeal this. We don't re-argue issues like this every time a new editor brings them up: go ask for outside comments at the appropriate noticeboard. -- TaraInDC (talk) 07:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I did search the archives and I couldn't find where the consensus was established. Like I told you, there were multiple viewpoints. You made the claim that there was a consensus established, which means the burden of proof lies on you. Where is it? Where's the proof?Sy9045 (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources are not reliable by default until proven unreliable, but the opposite. The burden is not on me to prove to you that Breitbart is unreliable, or even to point to a single talkpage section where the source was discussed. The fact is that Brietbart's reputation is so poor it's never even been given serious consideration as a source on this page despite being mentioned frequently: therefor, there is a consensus that it is not useful as a source. If you'd like to change that, the burden is on you to establish a consensus for Breitbart's reliability. So if you'd like to make a case for the site's reliability, take it to WP:RSN. That's what it's there for. This is just the way things are done on Wikipedia. -- TaraInDC (talk) 07:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's 6 controversies in a shorter lifetime than the New York Times has been around.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so it only counts as reputable if there are fewer than 6 controversies every 10 years or some arbitrary definition that I don't understand? Even if you read the Breitbart page, most of those controversies are innocuous (like Nancy Pelosi being photoshopped on Miley Cyrus' body or mistakenly citing a Boston.com source, which cited a European source that turned out to be incorrect). Another controversy involved reporting on Anthony Weiner's sexting scandal, which Weiner admitted to and which multiple news media sites like the New York Times and Salon reported on as well. Regardless, citing Wikipedia as proof of unreliability is completely unscientific anyway. What concrete scientific proof are you using to determine what's reliable and what's not reliable?Sy9045 (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Read WP:RS. Breitbart is exclusively known for being a highly biased and unreliable source due to being known for these major breaches of journalistic integrity. There have been multiple discussions as to why it does not qualify for WP:RS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually did read the archives on Breitbart. Like I told the above poster, there were multiple viewpoints and no established consensus. There were also multiple viewpoints on Slate, Salon and the New York Times too. Where exactly is the "established consensus"? I spent almost an hour looking for it and couldn't find it. Maybe you can help.Sy9045 (talk) 07:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked at WP:RSN? Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Breitbart as News RS, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 122#Breitbart.com, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 174#In most circumstances, is Breitbart.com a WP:RS?, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 176#Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for its own author's film review?. I don't know how many more times we can spell this out for you. They do not meet WP:RS because they have explicitly manipulated footage to suit their needs.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not kidding, stop taking about each other and stop insulting each other, it's against the purpose of Wikipedia, violating the GG general sanctions will get you banned from these articles . Dreadstar ☥ 04:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Anti-feminism and right wing opportunists

I've written a paragraph based on this piece by Zaid Jilani for Salon here. Tweaks and comments welcome.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's quite perplexing that you would cite something from one single opinion piece when you insisted above that something cited needs multiple sources. So opinion pieces are now fair game? Can we cite opinion pieces from those who aren't so anti GamerGate? I have a feeling that those opinion pieces don't qualify, am I right?Sy9045 (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a whole article on a spcific subject and not three sentences from three separate articles about other things. Your criticism is noted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Christina Sommers gave an opinion piece on MSNBC yesterday on Ronan Farrow's show that explained pro GamerGate's side. Mediaite reported on it under the title "#GamerGate Defender to MSNBC: ‘Not Anti-Women,’ Just ‘Pro-Transparency’". Can we cite that too or what? Where are you exactly drawing the line here?Sy9045 (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It reads to me that your summary of the Mordor thing (copies were given out, praise was required) differs a little from the article's description (praisers were given copies), which differs a bit from the Forbes piece cited in the article (a contract was offered to receive a copy in exchange for various conditions, including praise, and oversights). Maybe make it very broad, such as "involving the restriction of review copies to positive reviewers" or else cite a source that treats the issue at greater length than a couple of lines, such as the Forbes one. TuxedoMonkey (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the summarization I made was incorrect. I will look at the Forbes article and incorporate the new information within it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Drop box for potential sources for which you do not have specific content suggestion at this time

• Gamergate supporters party at strip club - I guess thats what you do to help counter the image that you are merely about sexual harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how going to a strip club constitutes "sexual harassment", but that's neither here nor there. It may be a worthwhile source for direct, sourced statements from some Gamergate supporters, especially the 8Chan subset. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

perchance i was rude in my last messagical message. My point still stands that this has a very loose connection to GamerGate, and does seem like a needless character smearing of a disabled person. --The Defender of Light Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing >Inventory< 03:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If the article decides to quote Brennan about Gamergate, this could be used in conjunction with other interviews he's done. Aside from that it seems to just be fluff.TuxedoMonkey (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

TRPD, your comment next to the link is unconstructive and useless. Considering the high emotions this article seems to produce, you should stay as neutral as possible and avoid possible inflammatory comments. Omegastar (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

An unusual sourcing quandary

Okay, I saw someone remove a detail from the background section stating that the gamer identity had come to be identified primarily with men. This was claimed to be "unsourced" and I was confused as I had specifically recalled a source cited at the end of that paragraph making this argument. When I checked the sources I found none of them contained the claim, but then I noticed this Vox article had been updated on October 13, despite being published well before that date. I recalled them having a section that was not in the current version and checked an archive. Sure enough, the archived version does contain the detail about the gamer identity, despite the current version not having it. This does not appear to be a correction as no note is made about the change, so I am curious about how we handle the matter. Should the older version still be used as a source?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

We could theoretically use the archive parameters of cite-web? If it was in the piece when it was added to the page, then the fact that we have an original accessdate as being evidence of this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

But if they removed it would it be considered reliable? I'd suggest looking for another source. Halfhat (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If none of the other numerous sources point this out, wouldn't that be a fringe point? Willhesucceed (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that the original version of the article had an extra section. I will revert my change. DPRoberts534 (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Milo interview

Is The David Pakman Show an RS?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljIMMCQyexA

Willhesucceed (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you describe what content from the interview you would like to possibly incorporate into the article? We should not have to guess what you want to be done with these constant posts.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

And why should we feature content from the Yiannopoulos interview over his Wu interview? Why choose one over the other?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Wu's already given ample coverage. MY's description of Gamergate, and his criticism of Wu seem appropriate to include. Willhesucceed (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

And no, you "should not have to guess" what to do with a source. You should investigate the source and decide whether anything's worthy of inclusion. Clearly my opinion doesn't matter, since it's always shot down, so I leave it to others to decide what to do with sources. Willhesucceed (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure what you want to do. You simply post these links and don't explain what we're supposed to get out of them. Most of this interview so far is just a retort to Wu's prior interview. An interview like this does not necessarily validate his opinions when they heavily violate WP:BLP to cover. Do you want us to say he doesn't believe that the women were threatened? Do you want us to say that he thinks it's really about ethics in journalism and feminist bullying? Give us more than a link. Give us suggestions for improving the article with the content of the link.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Because her points are already included through her interviews on other outlets? Loganmac (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That's because she involuntarily became a part of the debate and Milo inserted himself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It might be usable for his opinions if we determine that his opinion is notable, but an unsubstantiated opinion that casts aspersions on a living person and insinuates wrongdoing would seem to be right out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

A general thought on the RS matter first . This is an interview from a source that hasn't been used before featuring a contributor from a site that is mocked as one of Wikipedia's least reliable sources. Moreover it's not our job to give equal coverage to anyone inserting an opinion. Is there any particular reason why this person's opinion is more notable or trustworthy? To quote WP:BLPSOURCES "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources", and the bar for that is currently fairly high in this article. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 08:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. There's really no point in me even providing sources, is there? This is ridiculous. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If your source is a well-known ideologue making entirely-unsupported accusations of wrongdoing against a person, then no, there's really no point in providing that because it has no business in an encyclopedia article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Unlike the ideologues that subscribe to your view of the matter, of course, who are perfectly allowable. How do you guys not see what you're doing to this article? Willhesucceed (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If there are any unsupported accusations of wrongdoing against named people in this article, they should be removed. Not sure what you are arguing, but I don't believe any such thing should be allowable from either side. Unsupported claims and/or insinuations that the victim of internationally-reported death threats made them up is simply not acceptable encyclopedic content. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

He's pointing that several sources being quoted on the attack against GamerGate do happen to be ideologues, by some opinions. To a lot of outside observers, the entire conflict is highly ideological in nature, which is part of why there's so much moral smearing instead of objective discussion. Consequently, if you try to make the argument, "We can't quote known ideologues", you wind up eliminating a lot of potential sources. Trouble being that you'd have a hard time proving who's an ideologue, since any ideologue functioning as an editor believes their ideals are singular Truth. YellowSandals (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, please specify where we are quoting "known ideologues" making unsupported allegations about specific living people? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Explanation of Revert

Just to further explain my revert. The wording before seems fine to me, but also the change misspelled Sarkeesian. Strongjam (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess I need to be more clear. On the word 'intense' Daily Dot describe it that way. And on the word 'sustained' the sources describe this her as receiving ongoing and sustained harassment. 'False' is much more concise the 'unsubstantiated.' The rest I'm fine with except for the misspelling of Sarkeesian.Strongjam (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

While sources may use words like "intense", "sustained" etc, I believe we should be careful with such on wikipedia as sources may not be taking a NPOV as we are suppose to take on wiki. Calling someone's belief "false" seems problematic. Even if they are wrong (and I personally believe they are wrong) they still believe it. Also, just because he didn't personally write her a review doesn't make it proven false that he didn't possibly have connections to help her get positive reviews, but my understanding is there is nothing at all to substantiate such a belief. I see many concerning things in this article from a NPOV standpoint with respect to it reading as if we the wiki editors have strong opinions on the subject and are trying to get the readers to agree with these opinions and that needs to be avoided/removed in interest of neutrality and to get the tag removed --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Strongjam, I see instead of responding to the talk page concern above regarding avoiding incorporating non-neutral terminology from RS into article, you have simply reverted again [3]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize, I thought your edit comment was asking me to revert just what I had a problem with and then we would discuss. I didn't mean to cause any drama. Looks like it's a moot point right now anyways as Masem has re-written most of it. As far as intense and sustained go, I don't see an POV issues. These aren't value statements but descriptors that help the reader to understand why this is notable. Strongjam (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"Intense" is not neutral terminology. There's a better argument for "sustained" but I personally think "ongoing" is more neutral. However, I do see it's all moot as entire section already completely rewritten. This article is ridiculously chaotic. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Improving article for neutrality is not feasible if users revert multiple changes in one simple undo with no explanation on talk page

Strongjam, please avoid simply undoing and target the specific edits you are concerned with with talk page explanation.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: See above please. I did add the section, but the talk page doesn't always behave well, and I admittedly didn't explain myself very well at first. Strongjam (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure how I missed it or if edit conflict. I replied above. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Major lead change as to eliminate a detail-heavy second para

I have been bold and have done a significant rewrite of the lead [4] - it stays to much of what was already there, but the primary reason at this point is that the old second paragraph is a lot of details on the specifics of the harassment aspect - again, not that this is not a key part of the issue, but the details of specifically who and/or what is involved at that level are best left to the body. In this manner, I was even able to eliminate Quinn's name from the lead because while she was central to all this, it's not so much her (or only her) any more, but "all those" harassed.

The structure is done to be as brief a summary of the core events to date, and arranged to understand (and, my attempt) and make it clear that the ethics angle is the one that is being far overshadowed by the press's opinion of the harassment as sexist/misogynist. While the harassment aspects are clearly the more predominate concept here due to sourcing, the flow of information is much easily to understand to explain the ethics side first, and then be 100% clear while that was all going on, people were being harassed and threatened, subsequently burying the ethics arguments under that. This I feel is about as unbiased we can get on the lead while still acknowledging the fact that the press has not seen the GG side favorable due to the harassment.

I've tried to keep all the critical sourcing in this from the lead (there's only one I'm seeing when I previewed it that doesn't come up). --MASEM (t) 15:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's an improvement over what was there previously in terms of neutrality, but it should include mention that the accusations in question were originally made in blog post by ex-boyfriend. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

We have to be careful there. His blog post didn't allege she did anything for positive coverage, his blog post was just used by others to allege that. Strongjam (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Strongjam has the right idea. The problem with the previous lede's second paragraph is that one you started identifying all the major harassment victims, you have to keep adding, and while that's fine in the body, it's not for the lede. Here, by glossing over the origin of the accusation, we don't have to get into far too much detail on the exact nature of the claim. A lot of complaints - beyond the bias issues - has been "what is GG?" and by focusing on the major points and not the details, we can answer that better. (I hope :) --MASEM (t) 16:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Point taken regarding blog post not specifically making the allegations, but to my understanding, the blog post was the trigger of this, or at least a major trigger, so it seems it should be mentioned in the lead.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, if blog post mention is added, the lead might end up too long if it is adequately explained, so I can see your point for omitting specific mention of it. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a good re-write Maseum, thank you! If I can suggest, though, regarding the sentence: "These threats drew intentional media attention to the situation, who broadly condemned the Gamergate movement as one driven by sexism and misogyny based on the pattern of harassment, and calling out the drive for journalistic ethics reform as a front for a prolonged harassment campaign.."

Maybe change that to "These threats drew international media attention, with media outlets condemning Gamergate as a harassment campaign motivated by sexism and misogyny. Numerous publications have dismissed Gamergate's purported stance on journalistic integrity, assessing the stance as a front to deflect scrutiny of the harassment."

I think that's a little clearer and establishes the expressed motive behind what the journals are doing. The biggest issue, I think, was using the phrase "calling out", because that implies they're intentionally trying to bait a fight from Gamer Gate. YellowSandals (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You do not reduce the harassment that has been the major covered point to half a sentence and then bloat the rest with the content that all the major sources for weeks have labeled "ostensible" at best. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. Do you understand the purpose of the lead? It is supposed to summarize the content of the article. The enter second paragraph reiterates in far too much detail what is covered in about 7 paraphraphs of the article, delegating the other 30-odd paragraphs to the smaller 1st and 3rd para. So you have the balance all wrong. Further, as soon as you start going into details like that, if there ccontinues to be further harassment against other major figures, we're going to have to include them. In my rewrite, about 40% of the article is reflected in one paragarph, another 30% in another, and the rest between the other two. That's the absolutely correct balance for the lead, irregardless of the weight in the sources. It is also clearly less bias and much more clear what Gamergate is. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll give it this - it does at least try to avoid WP:BLP issues by taking some token steps towards splitting the false allegations against Quinn from the other GamerGate claims. Still gives too much weight to said claims and not enough to the harrassment though, and doesn't fix the length problem. Artw (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

For a lead, how much more can you say about the harassment out side of 1) summarizing the general events and suspected parties and 2) that the media broadly condemned it and accused the GG side of using ethics as a front to continue it? To insert more would require to dive into specific details, naming those harassed; naming names in this situation isn't a BLP problem, but as soon as you name one or two you have to name the rest, and that is what is weighing down the previous version. In other words, to keep the lede tight and concise, we have to gloss over some details. And to wit, the only fresh aspect of the proGG side that I added that was not already in the prior version was the GG moderates policing the harassers; everything else that could be taken as proGG already existed in some form or another. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I can see some merits to that approach, but per WP:WEIGHT would involve cutting down on what you call the "pro-GG" material, not expanding it. Artw (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

To explain the basic concept of Gamergate to a fresh reader that is trying to understand what it is, you have to go into more of established details of the proGG; mind you, I would also argue that in my change, we should add some of the specific impacts that the harassment has caused (devs leaving homes, leaving the industry, IGDA/FBI collaboration, etc.) since that's a significant broad facet of why the press has condemned the movement. But consider that the version I had, if you consider the proGG "favoring" statements, are : 1) they want to seek ethic changes, 2) some sites have responded to this 3) the ad pulls from ODNod, and 4) self-policing. That's not a lot and actually a fair summary of the most we really can talk about them. Most of the rest are all the antiGG statements, so the balance in the story is still in the predominance of antiGG sourcing. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It remains an inordinate amount of detail on the fluffy and dubious "ethics" material, compared with the harassment campaign that makes GakerGate notable. Also is say the self policing thing absolutely does not qualify for the lede, and barely qualifies for the article. Artw (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was a good re-write before the swift, unilateral reversion. It was more neutral and would have been a lot easier to work with going forward. But oh my, we can't downplay the stuff that vindicates the ideology of certain editors. The controversy's actual impact on the world? Fringe. Should be omitted. Proof that society is misogynist and needs heroes to save it? Oh, yes, very objective. Keep that at all costs. In fact, make it the whole article. Honestly, though. This is insane. For a brief period, the article had an easy to understand lead that contained everything you'd need to know about the subject, and all that lead required was a bit of readability cleaning and maybe some minor wording tweaks. Now we're back to this convoluted thing that nobody outside the debate finds valuable. And why? Just to play up the misogyny angle as much as possible when it's already extensively elaborated on within the body of the article? YellowSandals (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

In an environment where people will act for their ideology, aggressively in the assumption of their moral righteousness, civility is flattened to the earth by indignation. Look at what you're doing. For goodness sake. You're doing your best to draw clear divisions of good and evil, and you are bullying this article into submission with that mindset. You didn't like that lead because it didn't emphasize the evil you see of GamerGate? Well, for an unbiased article, isn't that point? Wikipedia doesn't decide who's evil and they don't make a point to convey that information to the readers. How do you intend to write a neutral article if your primary objective is to always emphasize the evil of the subject? YellowSandals (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

We get a "neutral" article by following the sources. And since the sources OVERWHELMINGLY cover gamergate in relation to the "evil", that's what our article will do too when it is "neutral". The continual whinging "but ethics!!!!" needs to be dropped until gamergaters find more "ethical" reporting like those at clickhole who actually see the "but ethics" as anything other other than a smokescreen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Please review all articles on WP about universally "evil" people/groups and tell me that they follow the overwhelming majority of sources that mark these as "evil" (Hint: they don't). This is why we have to be aware of WP:BIAS - we cannot treat the GG side as guilty before proven innocent, that is an impossible stance for WP to take. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

gamergate HAS been "proven guilty" - the only thing they are notable for is being related to viscous violent online trolling of women, as is well reported in all the mainstream media coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Only in the eyes of the press, not by any scientific evidence or a court of law or something else that is unequivocally firm evidence. That's the problem - we cannot take this attitude of the press, that's what BIAS is for. --MASEM (t)

you mean only in the eyes of the reliable sources, which is only what matters. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The claim that it is fact that GG is misogynyistic is not verifyable; just because nearly all the press have labeled it as such does not make it true. It is true that this is their opinion, but without any factual study that looks directly at the persons behind GG to determine their personality and motivations to be able to properly assess if the majority of GG is misogynistic or not, these remain claims based on observing patterns and the higher level of social media. Note that I'm not saying that this can be a wrong opinion, but there's absolutely no data to back it up, and until that happens, or something like a legal decision comes down on GG to say that it is misogynistic, we absolutely cannot speak in the Wikipedia voice that GG is misogynistic, only that the press condemns the movement believing it to be misogynistic. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You apparently need to leave this page and go get WP:V and WP:OR changed. This page is not exempt from basic policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What actual part of the policies are you referring to? Please quote. Halfhat (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You know, that part of the policies that says we base our content on what the reliable published sources say, not on our own bizarre claim that only when a court has convicted someone of misogyny are we allowed to state that there is misogyny. Our court, the reliable sources has in made and dispersed its judgment and the verdict is in. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no violations of V or OR, as long as we exactly what is there: the mainstream press believes GG is about misogyny. It is OR to say that, in a Wikipedia voice as a fact, that GG is about misogyny, which is what you and many other editors are trying to do. --MASEM (t) 01:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

such accusations require actual evidence. or strike them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not accusations. It's how we have to use sources. The press are expressing their opinion that the movement is misogynistic, not the factual evidence that it is. We work on "innocent until proven guilty". --MASEM (t) 04:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If editors have, as you say, made or advocated for edits that "say that, in a Wikipedia voice as a fact, that GG is about misogyny," then please point to those changes. Be specific. Use diffs. Otherwise, you're not discussing the content, but the contributors. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

At the present time, there is no specific edit I can pinpoint, but it's not the content (directly),it is the attitude that is being carried in this thread, and in the ArbCom responses that show several editors want to paint the proGG side as factually misogynistic when there is no evidence that it is. --MASEM (t) 05:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: if at the present time you do not have diffs to back up "which is what you and many other editors are trying to do" it would behoove you to strike the comment or apologize. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, one clear example is your comment above in this thread at 20:30, 29 October 2014. gamergate HAS been "proven guilty" - the only thing they are notable for is being related to viscous violent online trolling of women, as is well reported in all the mainstream media coverage.. That's pre-assigning guilt that we don't do for any other group that is considered evil or bad or whatever; we give them the neutral benefit of the doubt before delving into the harsh criticisms that the media gives it. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that you know as well as I know that gamergate HAS been proven guilty of misogyny by the mainstream sources - do we need to play them out again? The Guardian: The recent uproar – said to be over ethics in journalism but focused mostly on targeting outspoken women who aren’t journalists at all – is just the last, desperate gasp of misogynists facing an unwelcoming future." , The Telegraph "#GamerGate: the misogynist movement blighting the video games industry" , The IB Times Any lingering doubt over whether the Gamergate movement is dedicated to anything other than misogyny and intimidation was eliminated early Thursday when Felicia Day’s personal information was dumped online., Time: Misogynist Online Abuse Is Everyone’s Problem — Men Included , Huff Po: They are facing, as activist Melissa McEwan put it, terrorist misogyny." , Vox Angry misogyny is now the primary face of #GamerGate, The LA Times: "It's time to silence 'gamergate,' end the misogyny in gaming culture" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, but you've lost the plot. You're making a category error--we're not addressing claims of a scientific nature or claims regarding the law. We're writing an encyclopedia article about a harassment campaign. It's absolutely absurd to demand that statements about this subject be subjected to this arbitrary (and novel) threshold you're proposing. Protonk (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

We're writing an encyclopedia article about a harassment campaign. That is an immediately biased statement that we absolutely should not be taking at all if we are to remain absolutely neutral in the event. We are writing an article about a conflict on the internet from gamers questioning the ethics of journalism sites that includes the unfortunate element of a subset of the users engaging in a harassment campaign that has impacted the lives of several female developers and has been far and wide condemned by the mainstream media and has tainted the message that the bulk of the other users are trying to get across. That is the most neutral statement that is true to the sources. As soon as you start with "GG is a harassment campaign", you are directly attacking ~10,000 users that likely have not had any part, and in fact might condemn the harassment themselves. You are creating a degrading stereotype that WP does not speak with at any point. We (presently) cannot present proGG in any type of net positive light, but there is absolutely zero allowance to treat the entire effort negatively when there are reliable sources that are trying to give the proGG side a voice (eg the recent Slate article on GG Moderate). --MASEM (t) 05:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"That is an immediately biased statement that we absolutely should not be taking at all if we are to remain absolutely neutral in the event" OH COME OFF IT. You know as well as I do that the goal is to have neutral articles, not to search fruitlessly for neutral editors. I can't even process the remainder of this. I'm sorry to hear that 10,000 people are so guileless as to believe that GG is "really about ethics in games journalism", because they're carrying water for a harassment campaign. And your "neutral summary" is basically the public 'gater party line, so I'll pass on that, thanks. Protonk (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Also "You're making a category error--we're not addressing claims of a scientific nature or claims regarding the law. We're writing an encyclopedia article about a INSERT WHATEVER. It's absolutely absurd to demand that statements about this subject be subjected to this arbitrary (and novel) threshold you're proposing." It doesn't matter what's in the blank. The problem with your threshold for sourcing remains. Protonk (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking for neutral editors, I'm asking for editors if they are going to contributor to a clinically neutral discussion of Gamergate for Wikipedia, to edit in a neutral manner; to leave behind any bias they may have on their own when they make their edits. If you can't do that, and let personal feelings affect how you approach this, you should not be editing. I would quantify myself as slightly antiGG (some of what the GGs have asked for from the media seems questionable, and of course, the fact it took this long to organize to start speaking in a unified voice against the harassment stuff), but when I am looking to edit this, I am looking to treat all sides fairly, just as we do any other "hated" group or person on WP. We'll identify the strong criticism and condemnation of the group, but we do not start these articles with the a priori that they are "bad", even if all the primary sourcing out there does that. This also applies to proGG-sided editors, that they need to understand we cannot create a positive image for their group with the limited sourcing, or call out the press as conspiratorial, so that side, if they want to contribute, also must edit with a neutral tone, or otherwise should avoid editing. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

When I say GG is a harassment campaign it's personal feelings, but when you give me the GG party line it's the most neutral statement that's true to the sources. Got it. Protonk (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not giving you the party line. I'm saying what is a neutral statement based on the media: it is a movement that claims to be about ethics in journalism but marred by the use of harassment/intimidation tactics by a vocal minority that the press has condemned as misogynistic. That's not the proGG party line which would like absoltely nothing about harassment/misogyny to be part of it. Nor is it the antiGG party line that it is a misogynistic harassment campaign. It neutrally splits the difference, and that's how every editor should be thinking when editing this. --MASEM (t) 05:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem and YellowSandals refer to the Tone of the article, not the message. There is a big difference. As Masem says, articles on WP about universally "evil" people/groups have a neutral tone that is entirely unrelated to whether the sources regard them as "evil". If a (reliable) source writes that GamerGate is evil, we can cite that source and include that GamerGate is regarded as evil by such source, but we ourselves must report this in a neutral tone. And let me emphasize that. Neutral. Not in one direction ('GamerGate' is evil), nor in another direction ('GamerGate' is good). We must write with an impassionate tone. Omegastar (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the same concern I've raised. NPOV most certainly applies to tone here, even if this article will inevitably be citing from mainstream media sources that lean heavily anti-GG. All this said, the tone is *much* better than the seriously biased and propagandistic tone that characterized the article several days ago. I hope that the overall quality of this article continues to improve. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF is non-productive. Attempting to elevate an essay (WP:BIAS) above policy (WP:UNDUE) is likewise non-productive. aprock (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That really depends - OTHERSTUFF primarily refers to invoking "other crap exists" to justify a crappy article or crappy edit. That is indeed non-productive. However, pointing to good articles that manage to deal with controversial topics in a professional, dispassionate, and as far as possible, unbiased manner serve as positive examples of best practices that are indeed worth invoking. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If we can consider the revision piecemeal, IMO the most useful aspect was that it defined which is the "Gamergate" group and (at least implicitly) which is the "anti-Gamergate" group. The current version of the introduction mentions that supporters have targeted advertisers and that there is harassment related to the hashtag. The "sides", however, are not defined. There is no mention whether, for example, Ms Sarkeesian is being harassed because she is pro- or because she is anti-. I realize that these things can be gleaned from further down in the body, but it seems like this sort of general definition of terms should happen early. If we're using Gamergate to mean the event of the controversy rather than a particular advocacy, then the "Gamergate supporters and opponents" language later isn't consistent with that. TuxedoMonkey (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

A false dichotomy. There are lots of anonymous, pseudonymous, astroturfed social media accounts using "gamergate" each in their own way to grind their own axe. You cannot have "pro" and "anti" when everyone is using the term in their own way and their is no formal organization to issue a platform and the gamergaters apparently like that because there is also no culpability when viscous vocal elements go on harassment campaigns. The media has looked at the vague and contradictory "other sides" and found them to be either false or facile or not worthy of mention in comparison to the harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You are very right that there are more than two sides to this, so I don't think we should necessarily start tagging people with one or the other label. Let me just refer directly to Masem's version: "...with those supporting better disclosure of potential conflicts of interest rallying behind the Gamergate name." It gets a reader the sense that "Gamergate people are harassing Ms Sarkeesian" and not "Ms Sarkeesian is being harassed because she supports Gamergate" when they get to that portion. Presumably it was reverted because it states Gamergate's motivations to be about ethics. Maybe "...allegations about journalistic ethics were made under the Gamergate name and continued to clash with acts of harassment and misogyny." Alternately, I would be less excited about "Some Internet users, particularly on 4chan and Reddit, rallied under the Gamergate name and attacked Quinn" because it makes a strong implication that the tag showed up a couple weeks earlier than it did. TuxedoMonkey (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to support Masem in his attempt at brevity. I am coming out of wikislumber because the quality of this article is quite poor and it is obvious to any casual observer that very little attention to structure is being paid (not to mention the absurdity of semi'ing a talk page). Setting aside any accusations of bias, why is the lead nearly two pages long on a wide screen monitor and why does it warrant 3 enormous paragraphs? For what purpose do you include 28 citations in what is supposed to be an introduction? Why are you stating and restating quotes in excessive redundancy? Does anyone even understand proper composition of informative prose? I refuse to search 10+ pages of archive to see what insane rationale there is for this kind of nonsense. I came here to understand the controversy, but I could barely make it through half the article before giving up. I applaud Masem for a good start in a contentious battleground—and quite frankly I left Wikipedia because trying to get involved in similar article ownership issues left a bitter taste in my mouth—but this article needs much, much more: more brevity, more clinically neutral language, and more attention to proper structure and flow.--Dragon695 (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the constant intrusion of users trying to push a POV and demand that all of the various statements in the lead are contentious because they are not cited has led to the introduction being so long, exact, and cited. While it could be cut down, attempts to do so have been accused of favoring one side or the other, so everything must be covered as much as possible. I think.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a recipe for a mess of an article. At least admit we're left with a shit sandwich, rather than pretending that citation bombing the lede and making it 67 pages long is a good outcome. Protonk (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

1) Ryulong, you're in no position to point the finger at other users for POV pushing, and I think you know this. Referring to other users as "intrusion" implies article ownership, something that you've been called on before. If this article is to be edited productively to something resembling consensus, you need to stand down with that kind of rhetoric.

2) To my way of thinking, there is no need for an overly long lede, just one without inflammatory and biased language. That's something that can be quite succinct. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason the intro is so long is because Gamergate is an ongoing event with an ongoing impact on a number of places. It's currently wreaking financial destruction on a few periodicals, and the Colbert Report just brought Anita Sarkeesian on prime television to talk about her stance in the pleasant, satirical fashion Colbert is known for. Most logically, the lead would read as a brief summary of chronological events and the body of the article would expand on each event based on the weight of reporting on them. However, instead, many editors seem to view the Gamergate controversy as a battle of good versus evil and are doing their best to present it as such to Wikipedia's readers. Consequently, every time a new or old account drops in to ask about the bias or request some changes in tone or structure, they get the response, "No, we can't make a change. All the sources report this as a moral crusade and so must we."

This leads editors to ask for proof that all the sources are reporting on Gamergate as a moral crusade against misogyny, which in turn causes the lead to be filled with citations and quotes. This makes the lead messy and hard to work with because it's not clinical and the tone is one of moral indignation. YellowSandals (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Or in in short, the reason the lead is so messy is because too many editors are trying to use it as a preamble to justify a moral crusade, and as the controversy changes and new developments occur, so too must the rhetoric adapt. YellowSandals (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In short, GamerGate *is* a moral crusade against women in gaming, and reliable sources describe it as such. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

well, "moral" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Going to try to get this figure

Andy Baio's analysis of 3 days of #GG twitter has been referenced by the WAPost and Polygon with the image of the interrelated tweets (irregardless of side) a lovely encapuslation of what this looks like from a 60,000ft view. I'm going to try to see if this is in the PD or Creative Commons to be able to use on here. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

He got back to me, and noted he had a 30 day copyright exclusive with Medium, but after that is up he can put this into PD/CC. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice to get an image for the top. Halfhat (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, though I was thinking of having it in discussing how social media has played into GG (which in turn can focus on the issues people have found with Twitter about poor blocking controls). --MASEM (t) 23:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"Belief"

"Under the false belief" seems to go a little too far in assuming what was in people's heads. It also doesn't seem to be reflective of the sources' coverage of the allegations. Can we change "attacking Quinn under the false belief that her relationship resulted in favorable media reviews" to "attacking Quinn claiming falsely that her relationship resulted in favorable media reviews" or "attacking Quinn on the false premise that her relationship resulted in favorable media reviews"? (Or similar.) Neither of these make uncited assumptions about what anybody was thinking. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

People accused Quinn of having slept with someone for positive coverage. There was no proof that this positive coverage existed at any time before or after this relationship existed. That's why "false" is used.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not questioning "false", I know it's false and have said so elsewhere. I'm questioning "belief". We don't know, and it doesn't really matter, if they sincerely believed this, all that matters for us is that they said it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is fair enough, but perhaps this wording is what is in the citations?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not. Both of my responses here are things I pointed out in my initial post. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I think your proposed changes aren't too controversial. Seems like a {{sofixit}} situation then.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say something along the lines of erroneous rather than false, in these contexts false has bad connotations. Halfhat (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Erroneous is actually a good choice. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a fair warning

It has been brought to my attention that a couple of posts have been made in a subreddit that this article should be "Sea Lion-ed" with a group of people making incessant arguments to try to get some of the other editors here to lose their cool and get topic banned, so they can try to slant the article in their favor. (note: I am not going to mention which way, or which subreddit, because I want folks to focus on making productive suggestions of changes to the article, not the usual Player v Player blarney that things devolve into sometimes). If you're new to Wikipedia, great, hope you enjoy it, and hope you stick around. If you're only here to make this article all about the BIG TRUTHS of GamerGate (pro or con.. what we generally call a Single Purpose Account.. please realize that you'll A) Likely be hit with discretionary sanctions for disrupting discussion, and B) The natural reaction to someone incessantly arguing and barraging is to dig their heels in MORE and resist changes. SirFozzie (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Halfhat (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if we are going to be able to tell when it's started. Artw (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably when Anita goes on Colbert.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I would also hope that there is not a whole lot of jumping to conclusions and false accusations of being an SPA, something that has taken place earlier. Age of accounts, number of edits, etc can be easily checked of course, and I do hope that this will be done before any user is labeled an SPA. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"Long standing"

@Diego Moya: This is getting tiresome. Every single time someone changes the adjective describing the "issues of sexism and misogyny" phrase in the lead paragraph it suddenly becomes under contention. It keeps getting changed back and forth from being an exact quote from any number of the citations immediately at the end of that sentence. It was previously "long-documented" until Kaldari changed it from an exact quote. Before that it was some other word or phrase that had the same intent and meaning. This is so incredibly ridiculous at this point. Stop contesting every single new word that is put in that sentence. "Long-documented", "intractible", etc. This is unnecessary pedantry and you all know it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean it's barely been a day since you last complained about this word.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

And I will complain every time it's changed to a wording not directly supported by reliable sources, as it is now. I did not contest "long-documented" as that one was supported by the reference, but someone has decided to change it back again to the unacceptable "long-standing" which is still unverifiable. The burden is on you to provide adequate references; if you don't have them, I will remove it again. Diego (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

They mean the exact same thing. We do not have to have it as an exact quote every single time. Ingrained, long-documented, intractible, long-standing. There's just never anything that satisfies everyone on both sides of this, particularly when an editor who had not been involved in any of the disputes here prior to the RFC or the AN threads changed it on his own volition.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Diego Moya, this is childish.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear candidate for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Diego, are you really going to go WP:POINT with this argument that "long-standing" isn't a neutral and appropriate paraphrase of "long-documented"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The content is challenged. The burden is on you to provide a direct reference. If you don't like "long-documented", find another wording directly supported by the sources. Diego (talk)

At least three editors (myself, Ryulong and Kaldari) agree that "long-standing" is an appropriate and neutral paraphrase of the source's "long-documented" wording. Launch an RFC if you disagree, Diego. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

North, maybe you could elaborate on how sticking to what the source says, 'long-documented' could be controversial or cause contention, when it's what the source stated verbatim? Tutelary (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Just so long as you don't argue that there's too many quotes opposing GamerGate, when you refuse to let quotes be replaced by paraphrases. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh, how's that to deal with the issue of the lead being 'long standing' or 'long documented'? I'm not really sure what quotes have to do in this discussion, honestly. Tutelary (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There was some intense controversy -now at the archives- against using "long standing", as it implies that the issues have existed for a long time, but nobody could provide references supporting how long in the past was that meant to be; not to say that the words themselves have not been used by any reliable source and they haven't meet WP:BURDEN. The wording "long documented" only means that there's a wide array of documents, but has no such implication of being extended to the past.

BTW, NorthBySouthBaranof is reverting so fast that a minor edit of mine that was intended to correct an extraneous reference that I inserted from my mobile phone was turned into a full revert of his change. It likely doesn't pose a big problem, as seemly no one is enforcing the WP:3RR rule around here (at least not for certain editors), but it certainly entails an unpleasant experience, not being able to correct a minor error even for a few seconds after making it. Diego (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If we wish to stick to the precise wording of the source, then we must be sure that decontextualising a single word does not distort the meaning of the wider context. The full quote, with long-documented in context is:

In truth, the harassment has been going on much longer than that. For Quinn and many women who do what she does, threats and sexual innuendo are par for the course. Sexism in gaming is a long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable problem. _{(my bolding, for emphasis)}

The full quote says a lot more than just long-documented. In fact it goes much further than even long-standing, which does not capture the normality of the behaviour expressed by par for the course, nor the issue of its intractability. Personally, I would go with inveterate if we must condense the meaning to single word or phrase. But whatever is selected, long-documented misrepresents the clear meaning of the source as a whole. CIreland (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that it doesn't say how long is "much longer"; there was no consensus in the previous talk if that was two years or twenty, as all the references provided used subjective measures, and there was no clear criteria for what episodes implied sexism and mysoginy. As such, my feeling is that any attempt to introduce a qualifier to the "issues of sexism and mysoginy" is WP:UNDUE weight if it implies describing something that the references themselves couldn't properly define; though I would not oppose "inveterate" if it is directly supported by some reference, as it seems vague enough to capture the vagueness of the sources, without implying any particular time frame. Diego (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Inveterate works for me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the full quote, CIreland. It seems to me "long-standing" did an admirable job encapsulating the meaning of the passage as a whole. You can change it to "inveterate", or "ingrained", but neither word is really better or easier to understand than "long-standing". Andreas JN466 22:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Or we can helpfully quote Marc Ambinder, a well-respected non-games journalist, who wrote of "deep-rooted anti-feminist sentiment" in the gaming community. [5] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw that. [6] That works well, actually; kudos. Andreas JN466 22:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind - at least when I was pushing for some type of language, it was meant to be applied to the entire industry, pointing to the fact that the industry has fostered sexism/misogyny (unintentionally) and that is in part what is influencing this event. It was not meant to be term to apply strictly to the gamer crowd - not that it might have been long-standing with them, but it was more difficult to demonstrate this compared to the industry. --MASEM (t) 04:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we agree to remove redundant quotes

I'll have a look through now but there were several points where someone was paraphrased then quoted adding no new information, it's pretty much just ugly bloat, would anyone have a problem if I cut them out on sight. I think I feel confident enough about this to try to be bold. Halfhat (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems better than it was. Halfhat (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Motherboard

GamerGate has allegedly expanded into massive copyright violations. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/dear-gamergate-please-stop-stealing-our-shit?trk_source=popular kencf0618 (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If we do decide to write about this, we'll have to be very careful, they're accusing a crime but they haven't been found guilty in a court of law. Halfhat (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

From one standpoint, this is no difference between archive.today and sites like scribd; both are potential copyvios. I'd rather see a bit more coverage to make this a key accusation (and more about the issue of ad bypassing) from other sources. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"But ethics" apparently doesn't cover copyright. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Digitimes

Digitimes has been discussed several times and I would like to bring it up again, because they released a new article today.

Commentary: Time is running out for console makers to clean up GamerGate (9. September)

Commentary: Calculating the cost of GamerGate, many losers, 2 potential big winners (30. October)

Racuce (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Digitimes is one of a handful of outlets that are doing any decent coverage of the matter. Good for them. I notice also another mention of "moral panic". That's been referred to in several articles, which I've compiled somewhere in one of the archives. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It also further adds to the Criticism of the Press/Media articles, which I've, again, neatly collected in one of the recent-er archives. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The first article is from September, and thus a rather out-of-date take on the subject. The 2nd one acknowledges the minority status of the "pro-GG" side, i.e. "The overwhelming negative perception being presented by the media of GamerGate has caused any potentially legitimate claims being made by its supporters to be largely ignored, and any attempt to present their evidence to be dismissed outright". Tarc (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Section for "Impact on the industry"

I think there's a possibly for a section on the "Impact on the industry" that is not directly tied to specific actions but on the controversy overall (eg beyond things like web sites changing policies to address the ethics issues). There's two I'm pretty sure we can source without too much difficultly: the fear that women will leave the industry and/or will not attract more females in the future for fear of the environment, and that there is concern that the gains of "video game as an art form" will be lost due to the challenge of "what is a game". Can anyone think of any other more esoteric results that we can source? --MASEM (t) 14:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Another possible effect is the negative impression of gamers and the gaming industry as a whole, though I would want to find more sources than just this piece. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Leaked Emails Details

Jayen466, I might be missing something. I clicked through on the Forbes article ("the full exchange of emails" link) to what looked like Milo's personal blog with 2 links to Breitbart articles. I read through both, but for some reason I'm not seeing the email mentioned in the Forbes article that you elaborated on. The one referenced in this quote, "In one, writer Ryan Smith asks questions about where other writers and publications draw the line on writing about the private lives of subjects. He is quickly shouted down." Do you mind pointing me to where the original is? Kaciemonster (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's this one. If not, this one. Ctrl+F "smith" or "ryan". Willhesucceed (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh! Thank you. That's what I was missing. I read through the first email from "Kyle" and at the bottom saw "Click here to reply" and thought it was the comments section. Whoops. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

My concern has been addressed by this re-write. But just so you understand where I was coming from: the e-mail by Ryan Smith that the Forbes article mentions read as follows:

• Wow, this whole thing makes me feel very old. Lordy. So, I definitely don’t think anyone’s sex life should be news and I certainly wouldn’t write about it on a site. But quick question: how did some of you decide to publish the Josh Mattingly story from earlier this year: that appeared to be based on a private conversation about sex. Where do you see the line being drawn? And how do you guys feel about the Snapchat CEO’s emails from college being a story? I was also wondering if when some of you published stories about Zoe Quinn’s harassment — did you actually ask for evidence of said harassment or just go by what she wrote on Twitter.

Smith expanded in a subsequent e-mail:

• I’m just asking where the line is drawn at publishing messages that were private that have become public because someone posted them on the web. Josh Mattingly’s sexual harassment of the game dev (which is super terrible) doesn’t appear to be part of an interview, it appears to be informal chat made public. The Snapchat CEO’s emails became a big story not too long ago, and it was because private emails were made public. There’s also the case of Anthony Weiner’s sexually explicit messages. Surely it’s not all black and white when it comes to these stories.

In each of these cases, Smith was talking about inappropriate messages from men (each of them subsequently apologised) that were originally private, but then became the topic of news articles. Andreas JN466 18:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

We really should not be linking to Milo's website.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"Vocal minority"

Please provide a source for this statement: "It prompted increased attention to "deep-rooted anti-feminist sentiment" and issues of sexism and misogyny from what is believed to be a vocal minority of the gaming community." Relevant portion bolded. I see no source for the contention that the issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community which received increased attention due to gamergate's ongoing harrassment campaign comes from a 'vocal minority.' In fact, quite the opposite. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You're misreading the phrasing, as it is what portion of the gaming community is being accused of sexism and misogyny, not that those accusing the community are a vocal minority. Per [7] "Both mainstream gaming critics and many Gamergate supporters insist the brutal trolls are just a small, vocal minority." --MASEM (t) 16:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not misreading anything. That reference says that the 'brutal trolls' are a vocal minority. It does not say that sexism and misogyny in the gaming community are coming from a vocal minority, and in fact the source continues "that said, discomfort about women’s growing presence in culture and industry remains widespread IRL." You are using this source to claim that the 'issues of sexism and misogyny' which have gotten increased attention due to gamergate are coming from a 'vocal minority.' "Brutal trolling" is not the only source of sexism and misogyny that has been noted in our many references for this issue. this edit has the effect of minimizing what has been well-sourced as a "widespread," "ingrained," and "long-documented" problem. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's a fair concern, as the source is more towards the harassment, and I'll take TDA's assurance that "Segment of" (Which had been removed earlier) can be sourced on the broader issue. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You do understand why we have to keep "segments" in there, right? Otherwise, we are calling every gamer as sexist and misogynistic, which is neither true nor morally correct. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Er. If you say "community has generalised_attribute_X", you're not saying "every person in community has generalised_attribute_X", you're saying that it's a pervasive trait of the community. There's a lot of background and thought around precisely this issue. Ironholds (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason we're being pushed with SPAs and the like is that language like this, while technically correct per this logic, is accusational on top of an article that will never be able to be written favorably towards one side with the given sourcing. Assuming that TDA's statement on readding "segment", that it is believed from RS that only a segment of the community is considered sexist and misogynistic, we should include those words to simply defuse of part the rhetoric here. Obviously, if that can't be said, then we can't use "segment" but there are ways to revisit that sentence that make the same statement about the broad nature of sexism and misogyny in the community without making it appear as an attribute applying to the whole community. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the reason we're being 'pushed with SPAs' is because gamergate is there are off-site groups trying to use us to improve gamergate's public image. We need to go by the sources, and we can't bend those rules because you think it will mollify the SPAs. Even if there is a single source that claims that sexism and misogyny in the gaming community - not just harassment, but the broader issues which gamergate has brought to wider attention - is coming from only a 'segment,' that is not going to outweigh all of the sources that say that the isseus are widespread. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

We can say the same information with less vitriol and accusational tone without changing the fact that proGG does not have a good public image. That's wording choices. That's not any divergence from policy, and in fact adheres more to it when considering NPOV. --MASEM (t) 17:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not how I would read it. Ironholds has the right idea. Maybe if we changed it from 'of the gaming community' to 'in the gaming community' people would stop reading it as a blanket assertion? Strongjam (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That'd work for me, although a big bit of my brain wants to just leave it be; I'm probably not qualified to make or help make decisions on things like this, though. Alternate idea: we could rephrase as "the common problem of sexism and misogyny within the gamming community", which might help avoid ambiguity, but I'm not wedded to that. I don't think it's our job to educate readers as to the difference between "being black and white is pervasive within bovine communities" and "every cow that ever lived and ever will live is black and white" in-text. It'd be a note, at best. Ironholds (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure what phrasing you're suggesting. "issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community?" -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Exactly what you changed it to. I had a typo in my comment originally that confused things. Strongjam (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You could say, "It prompted increased discussion of "deep-rooted anti-feminist sentiment" as well as discussion of sexism and misogyny." You know, to illustrate that Wikipedia doesn't implicate any particular individuals or groups or stand with any side. We could just say what's happening. So much easier than trying to counter-balance a weighted statement against itself. YellowSandals (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

We could except that's not how neutrality works. Neutrality is "represent the split of the sources fairly", not "represent all sides equally, regardless of the split in the sources". It's been very well documented that both implicit and explicit misogyny and gender bias is rampant in the gaming community: fuzzing it by suggesting it's just a generalised discussion of sexism and misogyny as concepts would not be "what's happening", it would be abstracting away from what's happening. Ironholds (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I know. Stupid of me, right? We're all sinners in the hands of a angry god and it's undue weight to suggest otherwise. Else we'd live in utopia. However, maybe the article's tone might be more neutral if we didn't spend so much time flabbergasting over how to delicately accuse Gamergate of misogyny, and instead took the easy route and establish that "THESE NUMEROUS PERIODICALS SAY IT'S MISOGYNY" and have it be factual and non-controversial. YellowSandals (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That would be a very long list. Kaldari (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes. But we are clever apes. Some of us make good with the English. We could potential say something like, "A vast preponderance of reporting agencies have decried Gamergate as misogynist." You know - that sort of thing. Some way to represent big much numbers without actually pointing to each individual member of a broad set. YellowSandals (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia is entirely built on statements of fact and opinion by third-parties, this already happens: it's how citations work. The alternative would be replacing every assertion in every article with, explicitly, inline, "according to X...". We don't do that, because we like to, as you put it, "make good with the English". Ironholds (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

A crazy idea is we could just conform to WP:UNDUE and cut out all the weasel words. Artw (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a key step, but there's more than just avoiding weasel words , it's just being aware that turns of certain phrasing, while might be prevalent in sources, can be seen as a tone problem and an equivalent wording that loses none of the context from the sources can be used. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course. But I feel - and follow with me because I think this is key - some people don't like being called misogynists, and somewhere in the Gamergate Controversy, there might actually be a controversy. OH! Potentially related: I notice a lot of publications make fun of Sarah Palin's intelligence, but in the lead of her article, Wikipedia doesn't insult her intelligence. Is that weird? Should I hop over and edit Sarah Palin's article? YellowSandals (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no need for sarcasm. Could you expand on the "there might actually be a controversy" portion of your comment? And, to address your specific example; yes, this is true. However, you're comparing a specific living person parodied as being stupid to a loose community of people factually asserted as containing inherent misogyny. There's a big difference between commenting on a person and commenting on the general ethos of a very fuzzy group, and there's a very big difference between Onion op-eds and...well, as Kaldari mentions above, it's a fairly settled statement. Ironholds (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You find it completely non-contentious to call people names? YellowSandals (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean, be honest, if I called you a misogynist, would you feel compelled to defend yourself? Or would you agree with me if I found a bunch of journalists willing to say the same thing? I'm not sure why you expect who knows how many people to just take an insult like that lying down. It's a somewhat controversial way to write an article and certainly one that's going to bait a lot of angry responses from you insult. No? YellowSandals (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That's an adorable example. See, several journalists did call me a misogynist - and I responded by looking at my behaviour, and the behaviour of those I associated with, and growing the hell up. You may want to pick your illustrations better :). It doesn't matter if people find accurately reporting on what a myriad number of third-party sources say offensive, or insulting. Our job is not to write what will make everyone sleep well at night: it is to write the truth (or: the truth, as a reflection of verifiable information). I don't particularly mind if people take that lying down, standing up, or leaning against a window looking nonchalant. Ironholds (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec to YellowSandals' comment) Even moreso, when you read through the more recent articles that have tried to document the proGG with some sincerity, it is not that they are callng the GG movement as a whole misogynist, but that 1) there are very likely a small number of people within it that are and likely the ones responsible for the harassment, 2) this misogyny has tainted the whole of the "GG" name, and 3) while there are some in the proGG that are more moderate, the press is critical of this subset for not moving "faster" and with more seriousness to excise itself from the "GG" name as to denounce the misogynistic attacks, though appreciate they are working more on this now. So while we can call the movement as one that as a whole is tainted by misogyny (very well sourced), we should be very careful to apply that label to the members of the group as a whole as misogynistic. Hence in the above line in the lead, the language talking about "the community" and not "the section of the community" or "the movement" can be misread and saying that the entire population of GG supporters are, even considering what Ironholds said about how labels are applied. A word choice here or there can vastly improve the tone of the article.--MASEM (t) 18:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The article does need to talk about the issues. The gender politics and misogyny talk - it's all there in huge quantity. I just get tired of seeing it all represented as Truth. And I have a strong feeling as how it's become Truth in the eyes of some people, but I just refuse to believe the world is so black and white. Where morals are concerned, I don't feel like Wikipedia should be writing in blacks and whites either. YellowSandals (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for my rather sardonic tone, but this debate keeps going and it's the same debate every time. I've had one user try to ban me. Another has just recently threatened that I'll be banned if I maintain my stance. And the only reason I keep getting for why we need to use Wikipedia to insult some group of frustrated video game enthusiasts is "because they're wrong and everyone says so". At this point, a little levity seems appropriate. There's a lot of monkey stuff going on with this article.

And if you are indeed so easy to persuade with a simple moral attack, then what will you do when someone says you are a sinner and must repent? What you see as adult behavior, I see as a common social behavior present in most ideologies. Nothing specifically wrong of it, but perhaps you're interested in being part of a group, maintaining status within that group, and accepting the things that group believes. However, people who disagree with your group do exist, even if you don't communicate with them often, and they take a somewhat harsher stance towards being accused of "sin", "misogyny", or "degeneracy". YellowSandals (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

We're describing actual misogyny here, per the sources, not "name calling". Artw (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason not to attribute controversial statements like that to the source which presented them? Tutelary (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. You can see an analogue in some corporate articles. Sometimes a corporation has a PR boo-boo and we're faced with a choice to attribute coverage of the events to a source or to summarize those events in text. Sometimes it makes sense to say "the NYT alleged" or something, but in a lot of cases putting off responsibility for the claim is a bad idea, because it contrasts (sometiems obviously) with cases where we summarize an event and makes the claim appear implicitly weaker. That's the big issue. We want to strike a balance between attributing opinion or analysis where possible and not implicitly undermining the claim at hand by kicking too much of the text out to "so and so says". Protonk (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between a corporation saying or doing something to hurt themselves and having it reported as fact versus making generalized, derogatory statements about whole groups of people. If the majority of periodicals were saying that Nissan openly questioned the sanctity of cheese, then Wikipedia would say they questioned the sanctity of cheese, because the weight of articles implies they did. That's far different than if the majority of periodicals called Nissan a "company of degenerate fools". You can verify that Nissan questioned the sanctity of cheese. You can't verify that they are degenerate fools for doing so - who knows what motives they have to question cheese?

But here we are with Gamergate, with the majority of articles functionally saying the movement is composed of degenerates, and Wikipedia uses this as justification to say that Gamergate is a degenerate movement or a movement revolving around degeneracy. The articles are all saying they attacked Quinn, so we say they attacked Quinn. It's a factual thing that can be confirmed or denied. To be frank, maybe Gamergate didn't attack Quinn because the responsible party was never proven or apprehended, but we won't say that because no secondary sources corroborate this view. It would be undue weight to say that Gamergate wasn't involved in the harassment of Quinn.

But I do not call for undue weight. I call for Wikipedia to regard insults as what they are - insults. Things that cannot be proven or substantiated, and that should not be spoken in Wikipedia's voice. We'll say Quinn was harassed, but we should not say that Gamergate is a movement of degenerates or misogynists. To call them such names is to ascribe a moral judgement from which Wikipedia is meant to refrain. YellowSandals (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Huh? We follow the sources. If "the majority of articles functionally saying the movement is composed of degenerates" , that is what our article will do as well. If you dont like that, you are wasting your time arguing here on this page. You will need to go propose a change to policy, and waste your time arguing over there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You are insulting people and they are angry. I don't care how factual you think the insults are, they are still insults. Even if the entire Catholic Church decries homosexuality as wrong within its canon, that does not mean we go to the homosexuality page on Wikipedia and change it to call homosexuals a group struggling with sin and degeneracy. I don't care if an ideological group has come to consensus about another group they disagree with. It doesn't justify plastering insults on Wikipedia. YellowSandals (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

We follow the sources. Its not our issue that gamergaters decided to toss their lots in with an anarchic "movement" that began with misogynist harassment and has never moved from there. We are not their PR firm to fix their bad image. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources insult the people within that group by calling the misogynists. Wikipedia does not follow the sources so far as to repeat their insults. Do detail the harassment and attribute it to Gamergate as has been done across numerous platforms. Do NOT call any group or movement by an offensive slur popularly attributed to that movement. It's all I ask. YellowSandals (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Its not an "insult" to call a misogynist a misogynist. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Then nor is it insulting to call a sinner a sinner, and we need to amend the homosexuality article as well so the readers know who the sinners are. I'm sure there are more articles we can apply this logic to. Who else do we need to slander and destroy? It seems you are the judge and executioner here. YellowSandals (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the only appropriate response to that is "Holy hell!?!?!" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Well if Wikipedia is going to start arbitrating morality based on popular consensus, I expect you to explain how the site will manage. Your reasoning opens up a hornet's nest. YellowSandals (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

How is saying that there is "misogyny in the gaming community" insulting anyone? It's a simple statement of fact. It doesn't say that all gamers are misogynists or even a majority of them. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to say there's "degeneracy in the homosexual community" as part of the lead for the homosexuality page? I think not. If you're correct in your debate, imagine how many doors this would open to controversial and offensive material. There's no reason for Wikipedia to slide insults into the article as though it were factual information. Maybe there are people who hate women in the gaming community and maybe there are homosexuals who cheat on their partners. Though these accusations may be factual in the broadest sense, they are still slanderous to all within the group to which these generalizations do not apply. YellowSandals (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

As soon as you decide to focus on content and not ridiculous comparisons, you may be worth responding to in the future, but if you continue down that bizarre path you are taking, you will soon find yourself under the grips of the discretionary sanctions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the altruism but I was already brought up on the administration page for pushing WP: IMPARTIAL. I don't see what's so brazen about directing to other controversial pages that follow WP: IMPARTIAL. The homosexuality page doesn't contain offensive language just because some ideologies think it's morally reprehensible, and the Gamergate page shouldn't contain offensive language either just because there are people who find it reprehensible. YellowSandals (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(Note: we can - and should - include limited quotes that may include offensive language that represent the opinions of those critical of the GG side, as long as they are quoted + cited, and very clear that it is an opinion from that side; sometimes the degree of intensity of language can help explain how intense an opinion might be). But outside of these quotes, we need to be a lot more carefully)--MASEM (t) 01:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Right. I don't mean to push in absolutes. Sources being quoted are one thing. Implying that a whole group is steeped in moral impurity is too far, though. YellowSandals (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

KotakuInAction moderators misogynist/anti-feminist/interested in female subjugation porn

A simple investigation by BuzzFeed determines that seven out of 10 KotakuInAction moderators are also moderators or frequent participants in sub-Reddits such as "struggleporn," "breakfeminazis," "ProlapseVille," "WhatFeministsLookLike" and other forums described by BuzzFeed as "devoted to either the physical and emotional degradation and humiliation of women, or in subreddits devoted to mocking and delegitimizing the arguments and appearances of feminists and 'social justice warriors'." This leads BuzzFeed to conclude that "a look at the online behavior of the moderators of KotakuInAction reveals a community largely guided by a group of people who participate in and moderate subreddits devoted to the physical degradation of women and the mockery and the ridicule of feminism" and "the online activity of its representatives undermine the subreddit’s stated premise and reveal it as a well-orchestrated front for a woman-hating goon squad."

I find Masem's alleged sourcing concerns to be a non-issue; if we're accepting Forbes contributor blogs which are not even edited, then surely an editorially-vetted news post by a BuzzFeed staff member is a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is not a reliable source per WP:RS/N, and as specific names are given, you've entered a unfounded BLP claim based on an unreliable source. And while you brought up Forbes, they are not thoroughly vetted but people like Kain have demonstrated past editorial standards on their own. That said, I'm all for removing weak RSes in this like those Forbes blogs if other sources can replace that. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case, we should remove the 2 (3?) Buzzfeed articles we're using right now. Kaciemonster (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Anything on Buzzfeed in this article is from a staff member and not some random user submited contribution. Such sources should be allowed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The article suggested here is by a staff member. Kaciemonster (talk)

I am fully aware. I am arguing for inclusion. And there has been no discussion on WP:RSN saying "don't use Buzzfeed staff member posts".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be. If it's unreliable, it's not going to suddenly be reliable because there is no proof of editorial control and the vested consensus in WP:RSN that it is an unreliable source. Tutelary (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No one has ever argued that it was unreliable. If pieces exclusively by staff members have editorial oversight (there is a team of editors and such) then it meets WP:RS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Buzzfeed as a whole is considered unreliable, as they are established as a click-bait site. And as for the other Buzzfeed articles, they are not uniquely supporting any statement or quote on the article, so they can be removed without loss of proper sourcing. But back to this specific article, it is laying out accusations against named individuals simply based on a site's profile; this is a straight-up BLP violation. --MASEM (t) 19:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not. What part of BLP is violated by a reliable source describing people who moderate anti-feminist and misogynist forums as anti-feminist and misogynist? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a "clickbait" article on Buzzfeed. It's a news post from one of their staff members. It is only naming people's pseudonyms on the website. I seriously doubt that anonymous people are protected from WP:BLP.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't find any consensus discussion on RSN considering BuzzFeed an unreliable source. It has an identifiable editorial structure and is widely cited by other outlets. There is no BLP issue in republishing what Reddits someone moderates. I'm also unaware that Kain has "demonstrated past editorial standards" anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know of this is usable, but it certainly shouldn't surprise anybody. Artw (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

See also These Are the Creepy 4Chan Successors Behind Gamergate's Pathetic War, to a lesser extent the strip bar article and anywhere there are screen caps of the various GG/MRA boards such as We Hunted The Mammoth. Artw (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Any such implication or the like that these moderators (living people) are horrible people would be a BLP violation, straight and simple. Tutelary (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If they are not named people then how can WP:BLP protect them? It's another anonymous and nebulous group.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The article names admins; even if that's an online user name and no clear connection to their real name, that's still a BLP issue; even named "admins" (which are advertized on the KIA reddit) would be a BLP problem. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous online identities cannot possibly be protected by BLP. Not to mention that we do not explicitly list any names on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to explain what part of BLP prohibits us from discussing reliably-sourced statements of people's activities and ideologies. What part of the policy prevents us from saying "According to BuzzFeed, this person is a moderator of "struggleporn," which BuzzFeed says is misogynist? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to all living persons, notice how it says 'ALL', not 'except for anonymous online identities', living persons. If there's a living person behind that account, it's encaptured by BLP. North, it's because Buzzfeed is not a reliable source and the assertion itself falls afoul of BLP. The matter of there Buzzfeed being in the article wasn't rubber stamped by any editor except the person who added them. It probably wasn't noticed within all the edit warring, protections, edit summaries, and sheer edit volume. I'd imagine it was just overlooked. It still should be removed. Tutelary (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a news article written by a staff member of Buzzfeed, one that has to have been vetted through their editorial process. There are no arguments at any point on WP:RSN that Buzzfeed staff member pieces are not reliable. Per WP:BLP this is a reliably sourced, neutral POV adhering, not-original research addition that cites that someone went through the KotakuInAction moderation team and found that several of them were moderators of other forums that excusively denigrate women. That is all we are saying about it on Wikipedia. An anonymous group of people that we do not specifically identify are being listed in the source and it does not violate WP:BLP to present the information as NorthBySouthBaranof did.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Pointing out a loophole on how people on WP:RSN discussed something by without the qualifier 'a staff approved article' and trying to drive it by a reliable source based on that I think is not alright. They were arguing for the entire source itself, all articles and the like, and came to the conclusion that Buzzfeed is not a reliable source in nearly every context. (barring the 'personal opinion of it of course'. ) The fact that an unreliable source has written an article about a living person and trying to say that it 'X person denigrate's women' is the nature of the BLP violation here. In any case, I have another concern; What does this have to do with GamerGate? Tutelary (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Because there's a difference on Buzzfeed between everything clickbaity here and their dedicated news section. Buzzfeed is used extensively on Wikipedia as a source in articles. You do not get to contest it just because it paints the side you've taken in these matters in an unfavorable light. And there are zero discussions on WP:RSN that support your conclusions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What it has to do with GamerGate is self-explanatory in the article; the people who moderate one of GamerGate's lead organizing forums are demonstrably linked with misogynistic sentiments and the celebration of degrading women. And please don't go "well they aren't GamerGate," because yeah, we just explained in the article that 8chan and KotakuInAction are where GamerGate organize. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, here's the deal. You've spent oodles and oodles of words on this page trying to prevent us from describing GamerGate as misogynist because "we don't have sources that say GamerGate is misogynist." Then when sources point out specifically how members of GamerGate who moderate GamerGate's organizing forums are verifiably linked with anti-feminist and misogynist sentiments and interest in the subjugation and degradation of women... you instantly try to throw out a source that has already been used in this article repeatedly without comment or objection. The disingenuity here is obvious. You just don't want anything negative said about GamerGate. That ship has sailed, "based Masem." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Calm down NorthBySouthBaranof, trying to keep a noon biased article is not biased. That you want to show the world how bad Gamergate does not give you the right to use the wikipedia-page to do it. I suggest that you take step back now:::--Torga (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ohai there Torga, I don't take orders from GamerGate socks, thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you take orders from Anti-gamergate socks, that desperately wants to make this about misogny.--Torga (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It is about misogyny. Did you miss Colbert last night? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

For one, I'm not tracking this article every waking moment, and so if the Buzzfeed articles got in while I wasn't watching, they got it; now that I'm aware they are there, I'm point out they should be removed as very weak sourcing. But you have ccompletely mistated what I'm saying. You can state that GG is percieved as misogynistic by the press, that's very clear and unavoidable, you simply cannot state "GG is misogynistic" without any other qualification because that makes in WP's voice, and we do not take sides in any type of issues like this. This article is riding that line extremely close and it needs to be brought back towards the more neutral (not balanced, just neutral) tone. Let the press and the GG supporters yell at each other. We are here to simply summarize that both sides have issues with the other, with one side having much more predominate points to make over the other. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note we absolutely do not do "both sides" style reporting here, see WP:UNDUE. Artw (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes we do, since more than enough RS have given enough weight to the GG side (even if they disagree with them) to cover that side in a neutral manner. We will never be 50/50 on a content level, but we can neutrally cover both sides. The UNDUE argument is long since invalid given much of the sourcing that has come up over the last week, and more appearing to be coming in the future --MASEM (t) 19:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all the sourcing that describes GamerGate as riddled with misogynistic harassment, you're right. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There is also plenty of sources that talks about the actual earnest efforts of the movement. We cannot pretend that doesn't exist because some portions of the press have opted to ignore it or consider it a false front. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much all the sources say that those efforts are nothing more than a front for misogynistic harassment. I'm sorry Masem, but you just can't deny the crushing, impossible weight of reliable sources anymore. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent (like, last 2 days) sources that give at least some validation to the proGG side: Slate, BBC (including Quinn!) WAPost. Yes, there are other sources that are basically ignoring any more proGG matters (primarily those in the VG area), but you cannot argue that all the sources have. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is a very week source, Huffington Post or lower tier. Find something better. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I find that interpretation of those sources extremely questionable. Artw (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing at all wrong with using Huffington as a source, your swipe at them is meritless. As for Buzzfeed, there are several claims of "not a reliable source per WP:RSN, yet in the archives I see only a single 3 yr old thread that was hardly conclusive. Would some of the "per RSN"'ers care to elaborate? Tarc (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is like Huffington in that we don't yet have a strong history of editorial control and fact checking; Buzzfeed started about a year ago to get past its "borrowing content" approach and develop better practices, but they still are well established as a clickbait site (putting up articles that catch your eye on twitter or other sources that may not really have much content or not written with strong journalistic integrity). They are getting better in developing a history, but they are not there yet. As such, they are a weak RS that should be replaced if the source is not needed/duplicated by others (the pre-existing BF articles in here), or avoided if the details are not critical. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Those are fine opinions, but not the basis to take action unilaterally. You also claimed "per RSN" above, which does not appear to match the reality of what is found in the RSN archives. Also also, many Wikipedia articles use buzzfeed as a source, so I'm seeing very little weight behind the insistence by you and Tutelary that the material is problematic. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This also identifies a KotakuInAction moderator as the moderator of another "rape fantasy" subreddit. That seems to support the allegations put forward in Buzzfeed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm iffy on using BF myself, for the reasons Masem details right above me. I do think the instant something stronger appears (I see it's been used elsewhere on wehuntedthemammoth, but that DEFINITELY fails RS).. it should be replaced.. My thoughts would be to use that ref with the following line: "An investigation by BuzzFeed noted that several moderators of the reddit subgroup"KotakuInAction", which is one of the major gathering areas for GamerGate supporters, also either moderated or were regular participants in groups with anti-feminist or misogynistic names". Salon might be better, but I also have concerns about that as RS. It is undoubtedly Left-slanted, and should be used sparingly, as we would a right-slanted site. SirFozzie (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Being a moderator of a forum that has a attribute of X does not mean one has the attribute of X as well. That's a leap of logic we can't take. It can be observed but then Willhesucceed's point above "what does this have to do with anything?" applies. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

When it's been established that KIA is where GamerGate aggregates, then its moderators being moderators for several anti-women boards does have to do with Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And? That's an interesting fact, but it doesn't change anything. The Buzzfeed article would like to imply this is clearly a bad thing for them to be admins there, but we can't take that step. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If moderators on boards called "breakfeminazis" or a board dedicated to Gor are behind the moderation team of the main pro-Gamergate board, then it does suggest that they hate women, or at the least are anti-feminist.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that is a leap of logic we cannot take without an reliable secondary source making the claim for us. It is comparable to the claim that GG is misogynistic because the harassment focused on women, without the addition of numerous secondary sources making that leap for us. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The source does make that leap. Two of them, actually. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the BF doesn't - it gets about as close to say "X is misogynistic because of this admin", but it actually doesn't make the claim. But let's assume they do, then the issue falls back, is this a BLP issue. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Fozzie, so now that Salon has also drawn a connection between a person who is both a moderator of Kotakuinaction and of a "rape fantasy" forum there, I think the case is clearer. As multiple sources have now connected the A-to-B dots here, I think we're on solid ground for at least some brief mention. Tarc (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I propose An investigation by BuzzFeed noted that several moderators of the reddit subgroup"KotakuInAction", which is one of the major gathering areas for GamerGate supporters, also either moderated or were regular participants in reddit subgroups with content that the site described as "devoted to the physical degradation of women and the mockery and the ridicule of feminism." BuzzFeed argued that this demonstrated the group's misogynistic roots. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we're flying into WP: BLPGOSSIP territory here. Is there any relation of these moderators to Gamergate other than their reddit is allowing discussion to take place there? --Kyohyi (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Kyohyi.. as the BuzzFeed articles state, KiA is a very public face of GG, and is noted as being one of the primary gatherings of GamerGate supporters. And Masem: It seems to me like this would be a pretty good buttress in the section "Role of misogyny and antifeminism" in the article. SirFozzie (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Kyohyi, a movement can't just keep claiming that everyone associated with it isn't part of it when it's convenient for the movement to do so. That's No true Scotsman territory. Either you're a movement or you're not, and if you're moderating one of two main forums used by that movement... yes, you're going to be linked to it. Numerous sources discuss KotakuInAction as a GamerGate organizing center.

Wikipedia, on its own, cannot make the leap that "if you're a moderator of a forum used by GamerGate to organize, you're part of GamerGate." That would be WP:SYNTH. But we are not prohibited from republishing reliably-sourced synthesis. Indeed, that is precisely the role of a secondary source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Rewritten.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This piece feels really does not feel like it has an importance to the article. It is trying to slander a few individuals and make statements that are against BLP to list. They are trying to pin 'Misogyny' on satire subs (TiA, which makes fun of tumblr post and radical feminism), and peoples porn preferences, without even knowing who these people are, without having talked to them, and without having any statements from them. It feels so much like people are pushing a POV to shoehorn this in, to once again, use this article as a soapbox. For those saying it isn't a BLP issue because its under pseudonames, ZQ is not ZQ's real name, yet people continue to call BLP issues on her. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Is her legal name important? No. Has it been suggested that GamerGate is full of anti-feminists and misogynists using GamerGate to further their crusade against women rather than having any actual interest in video game journalism? Yes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Are the legal names of the moderators important? No. Has it been suggested that they, as individuals, are women haters. Yes. Thats what makes this a BLP issue. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Is that what the content that was added to the article, either originally by NorthBySouthBaranof, or the modifications added by myself suggest? No. It just connects people who mdoerate KIA with moderators or "rape fantasy" subredits and anti-feminism subreddits.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

How does that add anything to the article? At all. That is seriously just a way to shoehorn in the, "These people are women haters, we just are not saying it blatantly." Who cares what type of porn they like? The subreddits they listed also are subs that make fun of radial feminism, which is easy to look up. As people have continuously said before, many of these quotes that are being added in are being used to try to get a one up on pro-gg people, instead of adding to the article. Hell, it still is a BLP issue to, because of the way it is trying to infer that they hate women. It doesn't freaking matter. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is because the idea that GamerGate is a front for hating women is mentioned by many sources. There may be people who seriously think that video game journalism ethics are the goal, but there are still people on the outside looking in that identify an anti-feminist and misogynist streak, particularly with the anti-feminist and conservative right-wing bigwigs the movement has absorbed into itself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't -matter-. You are trying to single out individuals and making a "We aren't saying it, but we really are" statement about those individuals in a negative manner, and that is against BLP. Again, who cares what type of porn they like? There is no reason for that to be in the article, unless you want to put every pro-GG's person sexual preferences in the article, also. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Does the rewrite do anything like that? It's pointing out that two sources independently identified content they found to be questionable when regarding GamerGate's statements and the history around it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

YES! Again, it is trying to shoehorn in a "We aren't saying it, but we really are" statement. This is against BLP. Hell, we have no information about these moderators, and this article is trying to label them as woman haters, as well as are the people trying to push that edit through. Sexual preferences have no place in this article, since you cannot infer anyones questionability over that. Hell, I could give some anecdotal evidence and say I was part of a BDSM community before, have seen some scary shit, and everyone loved everyone. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This piece is just a smear job, and yet it's being added despite several protests. Someone tries to be bold and edits to remove bias, and they're reverted without conference. Then someone adds a smear piece to the article and plays guard dog to keep it in. I think that the losers with this Wiki article happen to be anyone who's approaching the thing with a passive, civil nature. YellowSandals (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not the fault of Wikipedia that the public at large takes this stance on such a recent topic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And sadly it appears you do speak for Wikipedia because nobody has been able to stop you. You were recommended to take a short break from the article and otherwise, apparently, this is all just splendid. YellowSandals (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have issues with my behavior, this is not the forum to discuss it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbBreak

While this edit is appreciated to defuse / better back the statement (while we affirm BLP issues), the approach that statement takes again points to the issues in the past I've pointed to about layering on subtle attacks / thumbing ones nose at the proGG side that this article does not need. You don't need both quotes; you can use just the Salon one, or a single word "anti-feminist" (I think the BF article used that), that makes the point clear without introduce more degrading language that is clearly only present to affect the tone of how this is read. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet it would still be removed despite being sterilized as much as it could. BuzzFeed is a reliable source. Salon is a reliable source. The Devil's Advocate, there is no reason to remove this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The Salon statement is a single vague statement that doesn't even seem clearly verified. You are really just using it to justify giving weight to a single article that actually discusses this in-depth.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Two articles discuss moderators of KIA being involved in several other subreddits that they found questionable. It's verified. It's justified. BLP does not protect groups of people.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP does protect the individuals that those articles are focusing on though. Again, sexual preference has no place in the article. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

But those individuals are not being mentioned by name and are instead being lumped together as a group. And I doubt "rape fantasy" is a sexual preference.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

ZQ isn't mentioned by her real name. Certain users ARE being focused on in that article, that is why its the "KiA Mods". "Rape fantasy" is a sexual kink, that falls into sexual preference. I mean, Female dominants must be misandrist if they have "rape fantasies", right? (That was rhetorical to show just why there is no basis for sexual preference to be included.) PseudoSomething (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What does Zoe Quinn's real name have to do with any of this? Why do you keep bringing it up? The fact of the matter here is that investigations were made by two sources and came to a conclusion that we are paraphrasing by noting the outside interests of people heavily invested in GamerGate that seem to exclusively focus on putting women down. That is all Wikipedia would be citing from both Salon and BuzzFeed. These people's online identities, separate from one person's pseudonym, are not protected by BLP, certainly not when they are being generalized as a group rather than the individuals within Wikipedia's voice.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I say it because of this, "But those individuals are not being mentioned by name" - Ryulong. Some of the KiA mods are being mentioned by name. It does not matter if it is a pseudoname, just like with ZQ. Using people's sexual preferences to call them women haters when we know nothing about them, is against BLP. Again, I have been apart of a BDSM community, I have a good friend, who is a woman, who enjoys her encounters more when the men scream in pain from it, this does not make her hate men. The non-sexual subreddits (example:TiA), make fun of extremist feminism, such as "Killing all men would make the earth a utopia" (not to mention, they make fun of redpillers, who are the opposite of extreme feminist.). This is a pure POV push to put that statement in there, and the 'revision' is just a way to shoehorn it in there and say, "See, we aren't -directly- saying it, but we sure are inferring it." PseudoSomething (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In the content originally added by NorthBySouthBaranof and then heavily modified by myself, no one is being singled out. No one screenname has been lifted from Reddit and used on this article. And there is an extreme difference between a pseudonym used in one's professional life and an online screenname. Groups of people are not protected under BLP. People who use screennames are not protected under BLP. This is all a stretch to avoid adding something that puts the pro-Gamergate side, as usual, in a bad light. It has been repeatedly criticized that the movement is a front for misogyny, anti-feminism, and right-wing activism, and the minute that people off of Wikipedia come up with evidence to support those accusations, suddenly Wikipedia cannot at all cover it because it is suggested that it vaguely violates a policy. There is no BLP violation. Just wikilawyering.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You have a very liberal interpretation of "groups of people". Is the band, Clutch, considered a "group of people" who are therefore individually exempt from BLP? If I wrote an article accusing Clutch of believing that watermelon is sexier than humans, does that not violate BLP because the four guys in the band constitute a "group"? This is wikilawyering at its most insidious, Ryūlóng. YellowSandals (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between a defined group of people that use their real names and a group of online pseudonyms.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No, its a pure BLP violation, except it isn't against someone who is anti-GG, so you are wikilawyering to keep it in. They are being singled out from the group, in your revision they are, and in the article they are being singled out even more. THEIR SEXUAL PREFERENCES HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE IN THE ARTICLE. This is not the place to shame them for having a sexual kink, as you are trying to, and it violates BLP. Seriously, again, if you think that their sexual kinks make them women haters, let me call my friend, who is a woman up, who enjoys the same type of stuff toward men, and let me tell her how much she hates men, even though she is married to one and dating one. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The proposed addition is not mentioning any of these Redditors by name. There is only a vague description of the subreddits rather than the exact names. And the sexual preference ones are not the only ones in question. There's anti-feminism ones being mentioned too. And I don't frankly care about your friend and her predelictions. You're going full apples and oranges here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that you really only have one article that really discusses this. The other article, which only makes a brief mention of it, is actually already cited in the "political views" section. You are devoting a lot of weight to the BuzzFeed article, when it is the only source that seems interested in the matter. I would say the "nature and organization" section is inappropriate for any such details as well.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, it is a BLP violation because you are implying negative things against certain people away from the group. They deserve just as much respect as others do. Also, it doesn't matter about the other subreddits, because implying they are women haters is against BLP. (Not to mention, the other subreddits make fun of -extreme- feminist, as in "Killing all men would make the world a utopia, its there for all to see. They also make fun of redpillers, the opposite of that). Its not apples and oranges, its the exact same thing, and you are kink shaming them. That is against BLP, and it is a stupid thing to do anyways. Singleing them "KiA" admins out because of an article that singles them out individually, and implying they are misogynist (Because, you know, if you don't like normal feminism, you are a misogynist anyway /sarcasm), is against BLP. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It states admins on a specific board, which is not private info (it's advertized on the board's front page), so it's not as anonymous as you might think. If it was just "board users" that would be sufficiently anonymous. --MASEM (t) 22:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The article does single out certain moderators, not just saying its the mods of a certain board. Even if they didn't, singling out certain people (like KiA mods) and calling them women haters because they have a sexual kink and make fun of extremism, that is a slander. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that Wikipedia is not singling out certain moderators in its summarization of the BuzzFeed piece and the Salon piece. It is not a BLP violation to mention that the public moderation team of one forum is involved with moderation of several other forums the author saw fit to note. These are not known people being mentioned on Wikipedia. It is an anonymous group that no one is particularly identified by their online pseudonyms either in BuzzFeed or on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

They are still people, and implying certain people (the KiA mods) are women haters from moderating subreddits is slander. As well as what The Devil's advocate said, "You are devoting a lot of weight to the BuzzFeed article, when it is the only source that seems interested in the matter. I would say the "nature and organization" section is inappropriate for any such details as well." There is no reason for people's sexual preferences to be in this article. Oh, and pseudonyms do matter, again, look at ZQ being called ZQ. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Remember, we're not even supposed to link to articles that are pure BLP violations, no matter how vanilla we can strip it down. I'd note that the salon piece wouldn't fall into this, because the claim is offhandly made and not the purpose of the piece, but the BF piece is specifically such, if this is determined to be a BLP. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet it is not a BLP violation. These are not known people with pseudonyms. They are anonymous people with pseudonyms identifying them as individuals that we are not discussing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It -is- a BLP violation, since these are individuals (PEOPLE) going by certain pseudonyms. Just because they are not publicly (EDIT: By this i mean widely) known does not mean they don't deserve the SAME RESPECT that BLP is set to give. Calling them women haters because of their sexual kinks is a BLP violation. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia calling them women haters? Is Buzzfeed calling them women haters? I don't see the phrase even remotely mentioned in their piece or in any of the attempts to cite this piece in the article. BuzzFeed lists some pseudonyms of people and their involvement in various other boards on the website that BuzzFeed has described as the following:

Indeed, a common thread among the moderators of r/KotakuInAction is that most of them moderate a constellation of subreddits wholly devoted to anonymously mocking the concerns, language, and appearance of people who identify as feminists.

And later

In all, seven out of ten of r/KotakuInAction’s human moderators either participate in or moderate subreddits devoted to either the physical and emotional degradation and humiliation of women, or in subreddits devoted to mocking and delegitimizing the arguments and appearances of feminists and “social justice warriors.” These online actions, while separate from r/KotakuInAction, are a far cry from a community that paints itself as the respectable face of GamerGate, unsullied by the rampant misogyny of unsavory fellow travelers.

How is any of this a BLP violation? They are not accusing anyone of women hating or king shaming anyone. They are pointing out the vein of anti-feminism and misogyny as stated by every other reliable source.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Women hater = Misogyny. Im using the definition. Buzzfeed does that. They are saying the mods are women haters because of their sexual kinks and their desire to make fun of extremism (even if it was all of feminism, it still does not pass BLP to call them women haters.). That article blatantly violates BLP, and as Masem said, we should not use it. Using the Salon article would be placing to much emphasis on a very very very very very small part of the article. Stop trying to kink shame people. PseudoSomething (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You are making a major semantic leap here. And how come when I argued that the mentions of the syringe sent to Milo Yiannopoulos were very very very very very small parts of the articles used to cite it I was wrong and we had to mention the syringe yet when you point out that the "rape fantasy" mention in the Salon piece is the same it's suddenly not allowed?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so now your pinning something I had nothing to deal with on me? Great. I try not to show up unless I have something significant to say. "Rape fantasy" doesn't mean someone hates the other gender, since both men and women have the fantasy on both sides of the issue. Implying someone hates women because they have a sexual kink or fantasy is against BLP (This would also mean you are saying women who have that fantasy toward men are man haters). PseudoSomething (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel like this is the end result of all the argumentation that Gamergate is immoral, with the core focus being on making the article reflect that. We finally just had a few editors crack, and they're bringing in personal smear pieces to bolster the assertion that Gamergate is "factually evil". This is the only logical place that a long moral battle could eventually wind up - because you can't prove what's going through people's heads, and eventually the only way you can sustain claims of "evil" is to start burying people in mud. All the while, screaming madly, "See! I told you they're evil!" as the people you bury suffocate. YellowSandals (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a "smear piece" to note that the people who moderate one of GamerGate's two most notable gathering places are also interested in a wide range of other misogynistic, anti-feminist and degrading-to-women topics. When the argument is that GamerGate is riven with misogynistic harassment and abuse and, in fact, is born of misogyny, linking those in positions of power with their personally-misogynistic beliefs is merely the gathering of evidence in favor of that position. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP also includes the talk page. Calling the moderators of KiA misogynist because of their kinks (which, by the way, are shared by both women and men) and their disagreement with extremist feminism (or feminism itself), is against BLPTALK. PseudoSomething (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a violation of BLP to describe something or someone as a source describes it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, you even went way past what the source said. Let me get some direct text for you. "Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to;" .... "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages". PseudoSomething (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, if that is the direction that reliable sources are going with the topic, then the Wikipedia follows suit. We reflect the world, we do not lead. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If all the reliable sources hurled themselves off a bridge, would you as well? There must be a line! YellowSandals (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're looking for an encyclopedia that ignores what reliable sources say, you're not in the right place. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Argumentum ad populum doesn't get you very far in life, I'm afraid. Try harder. Encyclopedia articles exist based on what the world at large has to say about a topic. Not what everyone has to say, otherwise the Wikipedia would just be an aggregator of blogs and youtube celebrities. We have to have standards, thus the project focuses on sources with a reputation for fact-checking an accuracy in reporting. Tarc (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is just sick. Sick in the head. It's becoming an inquisition. You're setting out to help destroy the reputations of individual people now, in the sole pursuit of proving to the world how evil they are. Maybe these people have evil intentions - I can't tell! But maybe, as Pseudo says, one of these people just has an uncommon kink. Maybe the others enjoy making light of extremism. This is not right, guys. No matter how you Wikilawyer it, it's damaging to depict individual people in a foul light like this, even if they use pseudonames. Would you not feel violated having your sexual interests aired on Wikipedia if we referred to you as "Tarc" and "NorthBySouthBaranof"? Could it not harm your standing among those who recognize you by those names? This is not justifiable! YellowSandals (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not chosen to involve myself in a very public movement to harass, threaten, drive out and generally make miserable women in video gaming.

Your stance on private information is rather convenient considering that the movement you stridently defend was launched by a jilted ex-boyfriend spilling his relationship drama on the Internet. GamerGate chose to make Zoe Quinn's sex life and personal relationships a public issue, which are now a permanent part of Wikipedia. It seems rather hypocritical to demand that external sources not make GamerGate supporters' personal belief and support of misogynistic and anti-feminist ideologies a public issue. Sauce for the gander, one might say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not defending the movement! These are individual humans! You've spent so much time with your head buried in the moral politics of this issue that you've gone completely blind! The righteousness you presume of your cause does not give you license to intentionally harm others! Exposing evil is not a public issues that Wikipedia endorses! YellowSandals (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, yeah, you are defending the movement, that's pretty clear from your edits here. That aside, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said we're here to "expose evil." But we are here to document what reliable sources say about GamerGate. If those reliable sources view GamerGate as a permanently-tainted cesspool of misogynistic harassment... then yeah, that's how the movement's going to end up being described here. My edits did not list individual pseudonyms or names, they merely discussed the fact that a media outlet has determined that some of the moderators of one of GamerGate's most popular forums hold similar positions in forums that feature content which can be charitably described as controversial, anti-feminist and misogynist. The media outlet argued that this fact supports the argument that GamerGate is inextricably linked to misogyny. That's all.

GamerGate has set out to destroy the reputation of Zoe Quinn, in the sole pursuit of proving to the world how evil she is. You seem to have no objection to our article's extensive recounting of salacious allegations about her personal and sex life, some of which are provably false. Why have you not called for the removal of that information, as it depicts an actual named individual person in a foul light? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if your edit didn't single any person out. As Masem said, the article violates BLP and can not be used. You also single people out by specifying the KiA mods. Also, sexual kinks are not misogynist (since both men and women share that kink, and are on on both sides of it), and being anti feminist (they are actually anti-extremist), doesn't make them misogynist. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem (and by extension yourself, TDA, and YellowSandals) is incorrect when it regards this source violating BLP. In both of the discussions on WT:BLP#Does BLP apply to persons only identified by their online username? and WP:BLPN#Gamergate controversy there is agreement that BLP does not protect groups or people with solely internet pseudonyms. I've restored the milder form of the section I had rewritten per both of those forums' explanations on BLP rather than Masem's attempt to play neutral moderator here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

WT:BLP doesn't agree [8]. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Dude, I just read both conversations. You are wrong. 100% wrong. Both say if it points out individuals, even with internet pseudonyms, that it would violate BLP. ON BOTH CONVERSATIONS. (Well, on one conversation he was taking the whole issue philosophically and said that was an issue.) Dude, you just BS'ed what those two people said. It is still a BLP issue, im reverting it. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No. The conversations clearly say BLP is not being invoked properly here by preventing this source and statement from being used. BLP does not cover sources themselves. BLP does not protect people Wikipedia is not talking about. BLP doesn't say "do not say bad things about people". It just says "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." and that's what has happened here. Stop using it to prevent this one thing from being said. Stop using it to say using "misogynistic" is a slur and should not be used to describe the movement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it clearly says its a BLP violation.

"Strictly speaking, the fact that(redated) and friends moderate or are active on subreddits that publish material that seems abusive to women does not automatically mean that they are misogynistic or that their conduct in the subreddit in question has been impartial, nor does the article even strive to prove the causality. If I'd were to look at it objectively, I'd say it's just a long ad-hominem, and something that we'd probably not allow in a biography to begin with."

"Well, the bigger issue as you said is the use of Buzzfeed as a source for contentious BLP material, but without more specifics I think the general answer is yes. The persons behind those pseudonyms are living persons (or we cannot reasonably assume that they aren't, though some may not be) and fall under this policy, whether they're specifically identified by their real names or not"

"but if there is confusion as to whether BLP applies or not, I would assume that it does and act accordingly."

Stop violating BLP. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no BLP violation. Wikipedia's policies do not protect people who you accuse are being maligned in the sources Wikipedia uses. And you are only citing one opinion posted on that page. Multiple other people have come forward and said that there is no violation in what has happened. Groups of people aren't protected. This group of Reddit administrators that Wikipedia is itself not naming are not protected. They might be individually if we called them out in the article, but that is not the case here. Sources are not BLP violations. This does not apply to this situation. Masem is wrong. You are wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

YES THERE IS, even per WP:BLT. You asked over there and disregarded everything that said it was a BLP issue from two uninvolved editors for one person who has been involved on this article (I believe). They are individually people and are treated with respect per BLP. Do not add it again. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not chosen to involve myself in a very public movement to harass, threaten, drive out and generally make miserable women in video gaming. There are many in GG that are in it to challenge ethics, and as our sources noted, are getting their effected tainted and drowned out by the vocal minority of the harassers. We cannot blame that group as a whole for those if we are staying appropriate clinically neutral , even if the press has decided to do so without any evidence (not observations) that this is the case. That's the entire problem with this article is that it needs to stay out of the mudslinging that the press is doing while still accurately reporting on their concerns and analysis, and the same for the proGG, writing everything neutrally in a proper Wikipedia voice that does not assign unfounded blame to any part involved save for the unknown identities of the specific individauls that harassed and sent death threats to the various individuals. We cannot assume the bulk of proGG is to be blamed, but we can point out the press is assuredly thinking this by a preponderance of sources. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There are many that say they are all about "but ethics", but again, the media is not buying it. Sooner or later you're going to have to give in and accept that reality, Masem. No offense, but you're getting a little Neville Chamberlain-ish at this point, steadfastly holding to a middle road when no one...literally...else is. It is one thing for any one of us to simply say redditor X is a Gamergater as well as a mod of rapefantasy; that sort of thing would obviously not fly. But now that the media...buzzfeed and salon so far...are making an issue of it, highlighting the hypocrisy of Gamergaters who profess to be sympathetic towards the women who have been harassed ("it wasn't us!") during all this while at the same time participating in the denigration of women online, then that's fodder for this article. Trust me, it's only a matter of time before one of these people gets the violentacrez'ed. So far, the harassers have been pretty damn lucky that none of em has been exposed publicly. Tarc (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the middle road; that is the whole purpose of the encyclopedia. There is a very clear way to write this in the neutral position using the same number and proportion of sources but simply backing on the excess blaming and criticism from the press to the proGG side when the same points have already been made. We'll still fully cover how the majority of the press has condemned GG and written them off, but since there remain sources that still discuss the proGG with earnest (I've linked 3 from the past 2 days earlier, that included Slate, BBC, and Wash. Post), we will still give them the time of day. Even if 100% of the sources wrote off the GG effort as a misogynistic front in their opinion, we would still be writing our article in a manner that disengages Wikipedia from speaking in that same voice. --MASEM (t) 00:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This is nothing but a push for radical extremism. Can you not see you've become the thing you think you're crusading against? "How dare those Gamergate fools harass women for their sexual conduct! Why just look at their sexual conduct!"

You're not even arguing for anything rational at this point. You're trying to bargain an eye for an eye. YellowSandals (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

We are not talking about private conduct here, but about moderation of public forums. Andreas JN466 01:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

How does someone's sex interests impact their forum moderating abilities? What does it have to do with Gamergate, even? This article is just trying to establish evil of these people and nothing more. It shows how terrible this thing has become that tying Gamergate to evil has become a sole excuse to include defamatory content. YellowSandals (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

How is it defamatory to say that these guys moderate these forums if that's what they do? Andreas JN466 01:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and post the issues here, I messaged the KiA mods about this situation (since its them we are talking about), and there are two problems. TheHat2 (which was specified in the article), was doxxed, so he isn't just behind a pseudonym anymore. That, and BZ basically infers all the mods to be men... well one of the mods of KiA and TiA is a, in her words, "I don't like to air it publicly because I'm figuring it out myself, but if I had to be the 'civersity hire' I'd be non-binary, female, bisexual." Big problems using that article, away from BLP issues. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not our fault that someone was doxxed over this. And I do not see anything in the BuzzFeed piece insinuating that the moderators are all men.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh wow, so someone gets doxxed and you don't care? This isn't a man just behind a pseudonym anymore, this is a person with his actual name out there. That is a pure BLP issue. Also, the BZ piece basically insinuates it, calling them misogynist and hating women, when in fact, one is a female. This throws this article into the, "Maybe their information is an ad-hominem" circle. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not someone mentioned in the piece is irrelevant as no where in Wikipedia's voice do I intend to refer to that person. BLP does not apply.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter... the -source- references him. That is the root of the problem. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources are not subject to WP:BLP.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP. " Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.". Also, per TheHat2, "May not be their fault, but I'm no longer afforded the protection of anonymity online..." PseudoSomething (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources themselves are not subject to WP:BLP. The fact that his identity has been revealed is immaterial to the content of this article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

PER WP:BLPSOURCE. "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.". This is pure tabloid. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbBreak 2

Let's get back to a key point: working on the assumption this is NOT a BLP issue, and we will take BF as a RS in conjunction with the Slate piece, what does this information add? Remember: all these articles claim is that mods of a certain forums are also mods of forums that have highly sexually-changed art that do not put women in a kind light, from a broad moral standpoint. So they moderate strange fetish forums (for lack of a better term). How does this exactly relate to Gamergate, without evoking OR? (A point to keep in mind: KIA was started before GamerGate started) --MASEM (t) 01:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Because they are mods for what has since become the Gamergate forum and we have multiple other sources pointing out that misogyny and anti-feminism are aspects of the movement, including BuzzFeed and Salon (not sure what Slate piece you're talking about). That is the connection.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Salon. Regardless, that's accusation by association, which is original research. Should we say any GG members that play the games that have been identified by, say, Anita's "Tropes ..." series as misogynistic because they enjoyed a game that was called misogynistic, like BioShock? (Pretty sure the answer is no). --MASEM (t) 01:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If KotakuInAction is identified by reliable sources as the go to place for GamerGaters, and reliable sources identify that the moderators of that forum, the people who decide what is and is not allowed, also moderate several other forums that the reliable sources feel are of note due to the nature of the content within, and reliable sources state that GamerGate has issues with said content, and these sources make all these connections themselves, then that is something we can say on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see how it is original research if the association and accusation are made by published sources. Ryulong is correct here. Andreas JN466 01:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that chain of logic is not established by the sources in that complete flow - parts of it, yes, but not the full case which is only inferred by tone and setup. You're making SYNTH connections that the sources do not explicitly state or would be considered routine by OR. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, then let's make sure that the article does not go beyond what the sources state. Andreas JN466 01:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Annnnd? That's my original point, let's assume we include all sourced statements, which basically say, the main GG board, KIA, has moderators that also also moderators of fetish boards. What does this have to do with the GG controversy? I know what leap of logic is being sought her (as to say that because these mods are mods of a board that could be taken as misogynistic, they must be misogyntistic themselves, and because they moderate the KIA board, that board must be misogynistic) but there's no logic trail that can be sources there at all. That's assumptions there's a connection. Without that, it's like adding "The sky is blue" randomly to this article with no reason, and as such does not belong. (and this is atop the BLP/RS issues). --MASEM (t) 01:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

BuzzFeed argues, In all, seven out of ten of r/KotakuInAction’s human moderators either participate in or moderate subreddits devoted to either the physical and emotional degradation and humiliation of women, or in subreddits devoted to mocking and delegitimizing the arguments and appearances of feminists and “social justice warriors.” These online actions, while separate from r/KotakuInAction, are a far cry from a community that paints itself as the respectable face of GamerGate, unsullied by the rampant misogyny of unsavory fellow travelers. [...] r/KotakuInAction may be scrubbed clean of the elements of GamerGate that have made the movement anathema to much of the culture, but the online activity of its representatives undermine the subreddit’s stated premise and reveal it as a well-orchestrated front for a woman-hating goon squad." Salon makes a similar argument. It's the sources that make this argument, not editors on this talk page. Andreas JN466 01:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That's where it's make a BLP claim that we're still evaluating: participation/administration of one of those side mods does not imply anything about the nature of the KIA mod, but the sources are making that assumption. It's certainly a bit troubling that they are in there, but you cannot call them misogynistic simply by participation. (It is not a BLP issue that they are KIA mods, or that they mod the other forums) --MASEM (t) 01:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a category error, Masem. It is not a BLP violation to report what a reliable source says about someone. No one is proposing that we state it in Wikipedia's voice - we are proposing to state that BuzzFeed has reached this conclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, the reliable source says what it believes it has to do with GamerGate. This is, by definition, not anything to do with WP:SYNTH because the conclusion is drawn directly from the source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Salon and Buzzfeed both identified that misogynists and anti-feminists make up the GamerGate movement, despite everyone's wishes that it was solely a movement to push for ethics in video game journalism, and they have identified that people in charge of GamerGate's primary meeting place are also in charge of forums elsewhere on the website regarding anti-feminism and pornography that exclusively denigrates women (but this could arguably not need to be mentioned in the article). They have made a connection between anti-feminism (and other things) with GamerGate. Instead of this separate paragraph in the middle of nowhere, would it instead be prudent to add a sentence onto the paragraph discussing Jilani's analysis of Yiannopoulos's involvement in GamerGate? Something along the lines of:

A BuzzFeed writer also found that many of the moderators of the KotakuInAction subreddit also served as moderators for various anti-feminist* and misogynistic subreddits.

*I'm not sure if "anti-feminist" or "anti-feminism" works here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I really can't see how that's still connected. "GG has misogynistic aspects per press", is fine, "KIA is one main GG site" is fine, "KIA mods also mod 'clearly misogynistic' boards elsewhere on Reddit" is fine (assuming that the opinion about the boards are made. But that says zero if the KIA mods are misogynistic themselves, or how that relates to the GG population as a whole. --MASEM (t) 01:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Am I making any of those insinuations with my piece? I am suggesting that the above sentence be added to the paragraph under "political stance" or whatever it's called to accompany the Zaid Jilani piece.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fine. The connection made by the sources is obvious. There is stuff in the sources that could be used to make it explicit, but it doesn't seem necessary. At any rate, what Ryulong has proposed above does not go beyond the sources. Andreas JN466 01:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are insinuating something if its not clearly connected, as it tries to paint an entire 10,000+ movement by the actions of 7 people, which you simply cannot do. --MASEM (t) 02:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to again state that there is a BLP issue here, so nothing should be written on the main article about this, until there is clear indication that it is not. We have had uninvolved editors say it is, so I would say, since it even -could be- a BLP issue, we should not keep it. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The thing about it is the Salon piece is already referenced in the article with details about KiA mentioned. The problem with the addition by Ryulong is much more basic than BLP. My opinion is that this is not a BLP issue, but it is a question of NPOV and due weight. Ryulong originally tried to add a lengthy paragraph, which was way undue, but even the smaller segment was problematic in its size given the minimal sourcing on the matter and the use of direct quotes. It implied the statements about the nature of the subreddits were true. Salon source appears to be making a bit of a misrepresentation based on one Redditor's characterization of a subreddit and the other is mostly just latching onto the fact that some of the moderators may have a weird fetish.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I posted just a little bit up there, but TheHat2, which was specifically referenced in the article, has been doxxed, so his real name and info is out there. He isn't just a pseudoname behind a screen anymore, so an article calling him misogynist is pretty against BLP. It is pretty NPOV though, since fetishes are fetishes and don't say anything about the person, and it all seems like, as someone said, an ad-hominem. This adds nothing to the article, and basically calls them misogynist and hateful to women.... just by looking at their fetishes. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources are not restricted by BLP if they happen to say something bad about someone. And whether or not one of the persons mentioned in the piece was doxxed does not make it a BLP issue, again. And their fetishes are not the point of contention. It is generalizing the various other boards involved as anti-feminist and misogynistic. Not picking out any particular pornographic predeliction. Stop finding excuses not to use the content.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the other boards, then go look at them and their wildly free information. They make fun of extremism in the feminism community. TiA even makes fun of redpillers, the people who think they are above women. None of that is Misogynist, and calling them Misogynist because they make fun of extremism (or even feminism, since disliking feminism isn't Misogyny) is wrong. Other than it being a BLP issue because the article states that all those mods are Misogynist and degrade women. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't an issue with the intended addition.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

THIS IS A HUGE ISSUE. You don't just get to say, "Its not an issue" to whatever you want to put in. Your sentence is infering that the moderators of KiA are misogynist. That is NPOV, is against BLP, and honestly, not needed in this dang article. Just like people have said before, this article has a NPOV issue because POV pushers try so hard to get as much negative stuff (even if it violates NPOV) into the article to thumb their noses and pro-GG. You don't get to group 7 people into the 'woman hating' circle because of 1 article that provides no evidence of it. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

While I've seen some articles today making KotakuInAction kinda reliable (though there still isn't mentions of 8chan which has got more mentions on media), this is a blatant BLP violation, and I can bet if it was me or another not so known editor I would have been banned for far less. It seems the BuzzFeed writer went with the intention of making a case against KiA being a misogyny central of harassment and bomb threats but found only informative links, so he attacked the admins for their fetishes and trolling. Loganmac (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The writer pointed out that several mods of KIA are also mods of other boards he found questionable. You can look deeper into the meaning as much as you want but that violates WP:OR.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is a reliable source. The author of the piece in question is a staff writer, he represents the company, if he's committing libel, the publication is on the line. That said, this KiA moderation posts offers very little, it's one piece of writing and one sentence. Compared to the entire litany of Gamergate material, it is fringe stuff (I mean, it's a fucking subreddit, not even a big one). New York is reliable too, but I don't think their coverage of what the 8chan core get up to on a weekend is of any relevance.[9] - hahnchen 02:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is a huge point, even if you take away the BLP, there is no significance to this, and is only being used to push a POV. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It was my understanding that "subreddit" just refers to any singularly themed board on Reddit itself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hahnchen, the article is far more than one sentence. [10] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I know that. That 8chan article is more than one sentence too. "One sentence" is Salon's passing reference. - hahnchen 03:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Since we're going to use Buzzfeed as a source now, I'm going to revisit all the sources I was told were too weak to be placed in the article, and include them. And none of you had better complain. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Minor Cleanup

I am noticing a lot of phrasing that isn't the best. I will attempt to remove the unnecessary bits without changing context. If anyone has issues feel free to revert, as I am doing a quick once over just to improve readability in the lead. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Gah the lede is making my brain feel like mush. I should be done with a quick scrub in a few minutes I would appreciate feedback. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You probably now hold the record for the most number of uncontroversial edits to this page. Looks good so far, but careful with the lede. It's a mess as everyone demands reams of sourcing pretty much every statement. Strongjam (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Primarily I am just trying to create cleanup. I don't want to change anything (hence why I said by all means revert) I just don't like when I read paragraphs and my mind starts asking what. It happens on articles a lot especially with a lot of edits. I tend to do better with tightening syntax and polishing then creation as I usually don't have a plethera of sources available to me. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• I returned the date formats back to a unified single style and split out the notes from impacting the references and turned the portal boxes into a single portal bar and prepped the See Also section for other cases if need be. Good work on cleaning up the prose Tivanir2. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Unreadable

Sorry if this comes through as disrespectful to editors that obviously are passionate about the subject, and by the look of it have spent countless hours debating and editing this article, but I'd encourage you to think of the reader. The article as it stands now is basically unreadable. A reader coming to this article to learn about the controversy, will have to traverse very dense copy over almost 10,000 words and at the end I am not sure if that reader will be the wiser. Please consider at least writing a concise and well written lede summarizing the controversy, if splitting the article is too difficult to contemplate. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologise on behalf off all of us that wants to make this neutral. There are unfortunately some elements here, 2-3 in particular that tries to make this a propaganda piece. --Torga (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

My friend, see m:MPOV. We all have our biases, but given time and eyeballs, articles reach a point of neutrality, eventually. You will be better served by toning down your attacks on other editors. It never helps. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there'll be any significant improvement until the controversy dies down and we can look at all sides from a critical distance and perspective. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)