Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

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

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? --MASEM (t) 05:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC) For the bot. --George Ho (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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 plurality of sources?

(Was "near-majority" but clearly meant plurality or near-unanimity --MASEM (t) 21:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)) (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)
• Yes, although it would seem that the reference to a "near-majority" should be to a "large majority" or "near-unanimity". Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, as theoretically it is always possible for an article to become too biased. This is a suggestive hypothetical. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Yes In this instance, the neutrality of gaming journalists is at issue: as they make up a significant portion of the "reliable sources", their point of view will tend to be overrepresented. If Wikipedia fails to take this into account, it does a disservice to readers of the article who want to learn about the issue rather than be propogandized to. Skyraider (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. It is akin to censorship if the media refuses to show one side of the argument. Wikipedia is not censored. KonveyorBelt 16:21, 4 November 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)
• No - An article can, as noted, be supported by a large majority of sources but still be biased, but that implies that there is something wrong with the sources (in this case, the mainstream media and gaming media). However, that argument (journalistic bias) hasn't been shown. A more likely explanation is that the reliable sources are reliable and that there are misogynistic elements in gaming culture. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Yes Right there in the lede, stating that the controversy is about X when X includes only one side's definition is POV. Skyraider (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Yes In the first paragraph of the article, it states "Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy which started in August 2014, concerning misogyny and harassment in video game culture." However it's not until the third paragraph is states "The social movement behind the Gamergate hashtag has stated that they are concerned with ethics in video game journalism, and identified themselves as participating in what they call a consumer revolt..." By putting the connection to misogyny and harassment in the first paragraph, it effectively sets an opinion. Perhaps an edit moving things around would help, perhaps saying "GamerGate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate), is the name given to what paints itself as a social movement concerned with ethics in video game journalism, and a consumer revolt; while at the same time is marred by accusations of misogyny and harassment." Kitsunedawn (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

  The second sentence in the article is presently "Supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement state that they are opposing corruption in video game journalism." It just seems you want to make the ethics angle first, which is not how things are to be done on Wikipedia per WP:UNDUE.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

  The way it's supposed to work is that each side of the controversy have their points of view attributed to the side that hold that view. Of course we aren't doing that because every time we change to wording to properly attribute points of view, somebody changes it on the basis that "everyone agrees one side of the controversy is in the wrong". Then somebody points out that the KKK article properly attributes points of view, and then some chucklehead says, "Oh this is different, because this time the moral issue has to do with a potential bigotry I feel really strongly about, which makes it factual and good to state as a fact in Wikipedia's voice". Really, the article wouldn't be biased if it would state objective facts as they are and attribute points of view in an impartial manner like Wiki policy insists we are meant to do. YellowSandals (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, but just because there are sources doesn't mean we have to use them. Consider this. If one side has 1000 sources, and the other has 200, we shouldn't add all of them. That would make it biased per q1. Rather, take an arbitrary amount that fits in both amounts, 100, say, of each side, and use them. KonveyorBelt 16:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, because the article completely accepts claims by one side, that were unchallenged by the "reliable sources" (which only copy/pasted their assessment of the controversy from involved parties, what we call gaming journalism). Just because someone who was harassed thinks that the people who attacked her and claimed to be #gamergate, ate actually #gamergate, doesn't make it true. Overall, it appears as if the pro-#gamergate sources get dismissed as not being reliable, while not one thought is given to how reliable the "reliable sources" are, if their information solely comes from a party who has a vested interest to dismiss #gamergate as nothing but a bunch of misogynists.Die-yng (talk) 06:06, 5 November 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)

What Is the Ethics Issue?

It is my understanding that so-called Gamergate supporters say that there is an issue about journalistic ethics. What is the ethics issue? My understanding is that so-called Gamergate supporters are defenders of the video game culture which they see as under attack by the mainstream media. The only ethical issue that is obvious to me is harassment and death threats against feminist critics, but that is on the other "side" of the controversy. What is the ethics issue? What do the so-called Gamergate supporters say is unethical about coverage of the video game culture by the mainstream media? I understand that there are issues about bias in reporting. However, it seems to me that claims of unethical reporting are stronger than claims of biased reporting. What is the ethical issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss GamerGate. Halfhat (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:RS the "ethics issue" is a cover story for the harrassment of women. Primary it consists of conspiracy theories revolving around Zoe Quinn. We should not be discussing GamerGate in terms of actually being about ethics per WP:FRINGE. Artw (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

100% wrong per NPOV. It is claimed the ethics issue is a front, but there is no fundamental statement (like a scientific report or a legal document) that supports this. As such we will continue to treat that claim as a popular opinion in the press, but absolutely not as fact. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

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" again, we have pretty much reached the point where the verdict is in fact in -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Quoting directly from the policy you cite:

"When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. Thus we might write: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre.[1]". We do not write: "John Doe is the best baseball player". The inclusion of opinions is subject to weight policy, and they should be backed up with an inline citation to a reliable source that verifies both the opinion and who holds it." YellowSandals (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

where exactly is there ANY, let alone SERIOUS discussion/distension? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, what. Did you not hear that Gamergate involves some controversy? You've been here all this time. YellowSandals (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Why, yes, yes it does. Misogynist harassment is controversial. Claiming that harassment is "about ethics" is controversial. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Every source you name frames it as an opinionated claim, not fact. Claims we will obviously include, but will not restate the context of the claim in WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Kaciemonster asked about this earlier and you didn't respond, but what realistic source would you accept for this? There's not going to be a scientific paper on the subject because this isn't a scientific question and you're not going to have a legal dispute that results in a judge saying "yeah, it's really all about ethics in game journalism". So what realistic end game is there for this? Protonk (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The realistic end game is to impartially state points of view, following the policy of due weight, of course, and then to attribute those points of view to the groups or people that hold them. Exactly as Wiki policy stipulates. YellowSandals (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The analysis of who makes up GG to make an objective assessment of whether they are misogynistic or not is likely going to come from researchers in the social studies area. It has been said that GG is an ideal petri dish for those type of researchers and there are bound to be papers for years trying to analyze the motivation and drive. They will perform their surveys, use statistics and other tests to make conclusions, and present it via a peer-reviewed journal, at which point if those papers claim the majority of GG supporters are misogynistic, then we can start thinking of it as fact. Another possible avenue for such a study would be something that is more proficient at public polling like the Pew Researcher Center, who can do a similar type of analysis. But key is that they are looking at the membership and not the actions. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

(e/c)The most repeated claim is that developers are too close to the games publication journalists and are getting good coverage because of the relationships. The reliable sources note that the actions under the gamergate tag focus almost entirely upon small indie developers (most often only the female developers) and completely ignore the industry giants who lavish games journalists with gifts and parties and consoles and their publications with massive promotional ad campaigns or the actual journalists who have allegedly committed these ethics breaches.

Some of the complaints also involved crowdfunding sites where journalists would make nominal contributions/investments to get on mailing lists about developments and access to early release /pre-release versions to review. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

there has also been some effort to frame as an "ethics" issue coverage and reviews of games that include social commentary aspects such as the portrayal of women. the position apparently was " ethical coverage" of games would apparently be limited to "objective" things such as graphics capabilities and ease of controls and not "subjective" commentary. that line has also been roundly dismissed by the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a great question that a lot of people have been asking. GamerGate hasn't really been able to articulate any serious ethical issue that anyone outside the movement considers valid. As per TRPoD, most common has been the argument that video game reviews should be "objective," which is a contradiction in terms. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not that nobody outside the movement has acknowledged Gamergate's reported concerns. It's that certain editors here dismiss those concerns and have been pruning them from the article. Even though a few periodicals have gone on record for changing their policies in response to the ethics concerns. This article has gotten so bad, I'm not even sure how accurate most of the actually factual info is anymore. If a single source reported that Gamergate was sacrificing pigs to summon the devil, we'd have a whole paragraph devoted to it and a novel's worth of debating on the talk page to keep it in.

Also, "lots" of people have been commenting on the biased nature of this article, but I see those are "legions of SPAs and sock puppets". Somebody who agrees with your point of view, however, is "lots of people" that have a legitimate concern. YellowSandals (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That is not the case. Editors here have recognized the level and type of coverage the GamerGate movement's concerns for ethics has gotten and realize that no one in the media takes them seriously (except for the many conservative-leaning sites out there that have jumped on the anti-feminism bandwagon).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, two months ago a couple sites modified ethics policies to make clear that Patreon contributions should be disclosed, etc. That wasn't particularly controversial. But now what? If this is really about ethics, there has to be something more than that, otherwise the movement would have declared victory and moved on months ago. So what are the *other* "ethics" concerns? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Except now, some of the writers have made their Patreons private. And, its not just about the indie games or whatever. From what I've gathered from the pro-gg IRC, the "warpath" has IGN as a later target, with the AAA publishers as well. However, their reasoning is that they want to start small, and climb up the ladder of corruption, so to speak. --DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Erm, to clarify, the IRC serves as somewhat of an "abstraction layer" of sorts to 8chan's /gg/ board, where, *le gasp*, people can post anything, but ultimately other people can weigh in on the threads. The IRC channel(s) look at the threads, decide stuff, and then (attempt) to get it up on twitter or somesuch, or organize "Operations" and somesuch. --DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

One last thing. There is a lot of (very overlooked) evidence of third party trolls false flagging harassment and such. That is an angle that, afaik, has not been covered in the page. Is it really that absurd that there can't be third parties who are getting themselves involved in this? Does it have to be an "us vs them" thing? People are people, all different, you can't just boil them down to the lowest denominator. (sorry for the tangent) --DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what relevance a Patreon being private is, and "starting small" presumes that they've found any "corruption" to begin with, which is a fact not in evidence. What they might want to do in the future aside, the movement is being judged in the court of public opinion by what it's doing *right now*. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, okay. You got me. So why not write about the controversy in past tense now that it's over and everybody agrees that Gamergate was more amoral than Hitler? And yes, as DungeonSiege points out, if you guys really think nobody worth caring about at is paying any attention to Gamergate outside of harassed feminists, you're likely going to get blind-sided as this conflict keeps going. You guys asked, "Why aren't they attacking the journals if they aren't misogynist?"

Well, Gawker is bleeding money now, so you got your wish. Now you're saying, "Oh, why don't they go fight the big boys, then, instead of this little periodicals if they're not misogynist?"

There's no saying they won't and some are saying they will. Can we be frank? These personal smear articles that were inserted earlier - are you trying to add these to hang on to this thing as a clear-cut moral battle with obvious good guys and bad guy? A bunch of political entities have gotten involved in this thing and it even hit the Colbert Report. Yet we've still got yutzes here trying to frame Gamergate as some petty, inconsequential nothingness that's just about ready to collapse in on itself once we all realize the issue has nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with ethics - or excuse me, I mean misogyny. By focusing so much on this moral crap, you really squander an opportunity to get an objective, ongoing, comprehensive look at this whole thing as it develops. YellowSandals (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"Gawker is bleeding money" [citation needed] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

They did post an article where they said they were losing millions due to some of these advertisers pulling support for their site. Gawker has been doing everything they can to get it under control. Are you really so far down the rabbit hole that you can't believe Gamergate has had any real impact at all on anything? YellowSandals (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No. They said, two weeks ago, that they were losing "thousands" of dollars... and that was in an article that defiantly said they would not doing anything different, because they would refuse to bow to pressure based on advertising dollars. No one else has since pulled any ads, to anyone's knowledge. Trying to get advertisers to pull ads from websites that say things you don't like is an interesting example of a boycott, but it has nothing to do with "ethics in video game journalism." For example, nothing Gamasutra published was unethical.

You are bouncing around the edges of this, complaining about what everyone else is saying about you... while you still haven't been able to articulate what the movement really wants. If you can't define what you're after, it's hard to argue that it's unfair for others to define you. So again, as the thread starter said — what are the ethical issues in video game journalism that GamerGate wants to see changed? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

About me? I am not Gamergate. I'm not the patriarchy. I'm not the devil. I am a random person on the internet, and I've been keeping up with this debate, and as far as I can tell, there are sides to this thing and Gamergate is having an impact. You want to write this Wiki article to imply Gamergate basically isn't happening, but it is doing things and there are rational people in it. A common complaint from people who are neutral on this thing and don't care that much about it, however, is that it's hard to even talk about Gamergate without choosing a side because there's too many radical elements. I question the incredible bias and moral attacks in this article, and surely enough you associate me with a group that you've described as "factually evil". So how am I supposed to work with you or anyone in this mindset? It's like one of the ways you identify a misogynist is if you accuse them of misogyny and they deny it, they're a misogynist. Seriously, it's like old inquisition stuff, and when there's a collection of editors on a witch hunt, you'll find plenty of witches as long as you're flexible with the definition of "witch". YellowSandals (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

So instead of answering the simple question of what the movement's goals are, you deflect, turn it around on me and fabricate a "quote" that I've never said. Quite. That aptly demonstrates why the movement isn't taken seriously. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Your personal perception as to whether or not Gamergate is a serious thing shouldn't be playing so much into how you write this article. I'm not here to debate with you about whether not Gamergate is morally wrong or if they're winning or losing their fight. I'm here to debate with you about how you write this article, and my stance is that you're too biased. You need to lay off the attacks and just focus on stuff that can be objectively described. Neither of us knows what's going through the heads of people involved in this thing, save ourselves - and even then that depends on how firm a logical grasp we have on our feelings. YellowSandals (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

We can objectively describe that gamergate has achieved its notability for the death threats issued under its name and that is really all that it has been noted for. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Correction: We can objectively describe that gamergate has achieved its notability for the death threats that the media has associated with it. Willhesucceed (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Willhesucceed: you are joking here right? you are not actually submitting that gamergate is only connected to harassment by some type of gigantic media conspiracy?? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not, I think his point is that the media is making accusations without proof. They are not reporting facts, but opinions, which you and others like you are just too willing to believe. For the record, if I attack someone and say I'm a wikipedia editor adn that I come from and act for wikipedia, does that make wikipedia or all the other editors responsible and guilty for my actions? That is what the press is doing right now. They are claiming that the people who harassed and attacked the women are #gamergate and all of #gamergate, when there's no actual proof for that, but very many indicators that the majority of #gamergate is actually against those acts. Yet, those statements you won't believe, but believe everything the other side claims. And you want wikipedia to follow your bias? I hope we can be better than that.Die-yng (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The proof is in the pudding. All of these acts of harassment< death threats, and the like have happened because people have spoken out against GamerGate or because they are the cause of GamerGate. Wikipedia is a foundation that has a governing body and other things that GamerGate inherently does not have because it's an anonymous social movement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If the media has associated them with GamerGate, then we cannot say that they aren't related to GamerGate on Wikipedia. Your No true Scotsman deflection is not how Wikipedia works.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

To answer the question of goals, I believe this pastebin would work. http://pastebin.com/tTDeG7Zg It's one of many, and while the goals do vary some from supporter to supporter, it covers the main points pretty well. The main points are: 1.) Being treated with respect by gaming journalistic sites, 2.) Disclosure of previous involvement or relationship with review subjects, 3.) No collusion between journalistic entities. (Mailing lists, etc) 4.) Censorship is not acceptable. 5.) news articles concerning persons should have more than a single source, and all sources must be verifiable, 6.) Personal opinion, or political ideologies should not sway game coverage 7.) No blacklisting of developers 8.) Refusal to be defined by race, creed, religion, or gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitsunedawn (talk • contribs) 02:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

We are aware of the goals. We can't use anything you've written in that 2 month old pastebin anyway because content on Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll - update lead

Should the lead paragraph be updated to read:

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

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

!vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose as it serves to worsen the bias that already exists.Skyraider (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• oppose for reasons others have already stated more eloquent.Die-yng (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

the inevitable rambling discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article neutrality

I am appalled by the absolute lack of neutrality demonstrated in this article. The introduction alone is clearly taking a side and simple edits would suffice to fix it:

Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy which started in August 2014. Supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement state that they are opposing corruption in video game journalism. Detractors state that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture.

The controversy began when indie game developer Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleged that Quinn had a romantic relationship with a journalist for the video game news site Kotaku. This led to harassment of Quinn, including accusations that the relationship had led to positive coverage of Quinn's game. This in turn led to the birth of the Gamergate movement whose stated aim was to denounce a climate of corruption in gaming journalism. The conflict escalated when a number of gaming industry employees supportive of Quinn were subjected to harassment, threats of violence, and doxxing, leading some to flee their homes.The targets of the harassment included Quinn, feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian, and indie game developer Brianna Wu. The harassment came from social media users, particularly those from 4chan and Reddit using the #gamergate hashtag. It was condemned by media sources as anti-feminist,[1] and heightened discussion of sexism and misogyny as well of journalistic integrity in the gaming community.

The social movement behind the Gamergate hashtag has stated that they are concerned with ethics in video game journalism, and identified themselves as participating in what they call a consumer revolt, with members requesting that ad providers pull support from sites critical of Gamergate. This decision and others have been widely criticized in the media as evidence that the ethics concerns are only a front for a culture war against people working to diversify the video game demographic. The Gamergate group's origins in the accusations and harassment of Quinn, its failure to identify significant ethical issues in games media, and its frequent criticism of game critics who discuss issues of gender, class, and politics in their reviews have also been cited as evidence for this position.

The events of Gamergate are attributed by its proponents to perceived conflicts of interest, dishonesty and a lack of professionalism in the gaming journalism industry. They cite examples such as the firing of Jeff Gerstmann over his review of the game "Kane and Lynch", the shutting down of "The Fine Young Capitalists'" web fundraiser and conflicts of interests at IndieCade and the Independent Games Festival. Such issues in gaming journalism in turn leads to reduced consumer awareness and greater difficulty to break through for independent game developers. Meanwhile, detractors attribute them to perceived changes or threats to the "gamer" identity as a result of the ongoing diversification and maturation of the gaming industry. As video games have become recognized as a popular art form, they have been subjected to social criticism and treated directly as a vehicle for such commentary. This move to recognize games as art is thought to have prompted opposition from traditional "hardcore" gamers who view games primarily as a form of entertainment.

There we go, simple as that. I haven't read the entire article but if the introduction sets the tone for it, then the entirety of it needs to be rewritten in such a way. Such a lack of neutrality threatens Wikipedia's integrity and should be dealt with swiftly. Akesgeroth (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There is literally a discussion on this right above this, not to mention this version spins it into solely a pro-Gamergate point of view that is about the movement and not the controversy and is therefore not "neutral" per WP:NPOV.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, I actually would support this text that is a pipe dream--although a few sentences would need to be cut or whatever, I'll keep hoping. Tutelary (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is basically just the polar opposite of the lede from the GamerGater point of view. I don't see how it's any more neutral, not to mention there's no source to support the vast rewriting when the opposite is true for the present version.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The original wording automatically implies that the group opposing Gamergate is right and overwhelmingly presents their side of the issue, unchallenged. Meanwhile, the "Pro-Gamergate" side is crudely summarized in one sentence whose only purpose is to introduce yet more "anti-Gamergate" arguments. I reworded it to include both sides and remove any suggestion that either side is right, so please state how you feel this version would be "less neutral". Akesgeroth (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Because this version is just a GamerGate spin on everything. You remove the mention of misogyny and harassment from the first paragraph, which is how everyone other than GamerGate itself sees things from the outside in, and gives undue weight to the GamerGate POV which for the past several months of discussing this subject is not found in the preponderance of reliable sources. It is not Wikipedia's job to serve as a spin doctor for the movement as you and everyone else who has not been on Wikipedia for months or years at a time coming here from KotakuInAction to use your old Wikipedia accounts to try to sway the article in your favor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Who are these "everyone" you speak of Ryulong? Or are you saying that everyone that all of a sudden agrees with GG are suddenly a part of GG and therefor the "everyone" would not include them?--Thronedrei (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The sentence "Detractors state that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture." is still in the first paragraph. All I did was remove ", concerning misogyny and harassment in video game culture." because that part is not neutral but rather the side of the "anti-Gamergate" crowd, which is mentioned alongside the "pro-Gamergate" side, without supporting either side. Please read what is written before actually commenting on it. Akesgeroth (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

As per the reliable sources, the controversy is about misogyny and harassment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It gets fixed sometimes, but it only lasts for a day or less usually. Somebody barges in saying, "No way, that's now how it happened! Nobody believes this!" and pretty soon the article is absurd again. The issue is that some editors feel there's a clinical, factual way to gauge when something is misogynistic, and Gamergate has fulfilled that, so we need to spend as much time as possible telling everyone how misogynistic it is. Consequently, we occasionally have people coming in to ask what Gamergate is even about, because the article has come to be written as 90% misogyny accusations and 10% half-hearted acceptance that stuff is happening.

I appreciate the re-write! I skimmed over it and see what you're going for, and I think it's a bit bulky - plus we need to make sure everything can be linked to a source. In any case, you'll need to hang around over an extended period if you'd like to have it and keep it, though. YellowSandals (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I unfortunately have neither the time or inclination to debate this much further and edit the entire article. Rather, my intervention was aimed at expressing my concerns over neutrality and demonstrating that it would be easy to rewrite it without taking sides on the issue.Akesgeroth (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

These "fixes" are attempts by those in the GamerGate movement and not actual attempts at arguing for neutrality because "neutrality" in their mind, as is evident by this rewrite proposal, is one that is effectively and entirely biased in their favor, as Erik Kain pointed out months ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Presenting both sides equally is not biased in anyone's favor. Akesgeroth (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is, actually. Wikipedia does not present "both sides equally" — it presents positions in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for trying! The article needs a lot of work in a lot of ways, but the controversy is highly ideological and Wikipedia has unfortunately been a battleground for the issue. YellowSandals (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The claims about Quinn have been proven false repeatedly. The claims re: IGF and IndieCade are entirely unsourced. TFYC has nothing in particular to do with journalism ethics. Gerstmann got fired seven years ago at the behest of a major publisher, which GamerGate has been conspicuously unwilling to criticize thus far. In short, your rewrite proposal is not acceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure somebody would start commenting on it if it wasn't for the fact that it happened SEVEN years ago. I wasn't even aware that this had happened until you brought it up.--Thronedrei (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Quit talking about other editors on this talk page or you risk being Sanctioned under Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate. Dreadstar ☥ 02:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is nothing to be gained by entertaining single-purpose account after single-purpose account in thread after thread when all they do is post "this article sucks!" screeds. It just raises tempers, which as noted earlier is exactly what external forces are doing here intentionally. Hat these discussions or ignore them outright, we'll all be better off. Tarc (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Hear hear! Let us shun outside perspectives! For we do not need them. They are all fools. This article is nearly perfect. All we need now is an escalator and Time Machine and we can prove once and forever that Gamergate is wrong! In case you missed it, I'm joking. I know you guys like to write off the "legions of SPAs and sock puppets" as a bunch of conspiratorially connected evil-doers who want an evil, impartial article, but the sheer volatility of your reactions to these people does seem to drive most of them away. I think anyone who sticks around this thing must be a glutton for punishment. YellowSandals (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC) It's a general lack of enthusiasm at people with ten edits on their account coming here to make the same claims as everyone that came before them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Ryulong, it does not matter whether someone has made 10 edits or 100 edits. They have just as much right as you do to come here and state their opinion. You are definitely biting Cla68 here. [[THEO!|User:Tjraptis20]] (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Good grief. How about I chime in here. I have more than 10 edits. I do not play video games and I do not belong to GamerGate or anti-GamerGate (and all editors here should not be leveling these kind of accusations at each other). I agree with Akesgeroth that the current lede is not sufficiently neutral and his/her proposed lede is better. Do we need an RfC or can we work through this? Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Akesgeroth's proposed lead is not supported by the sources used throughout the article and very little sources out there to even support several of the statements made. This effectively gives undue weight to the minority opinion in these matters. Neutrality isn't "both sides get equal treatment". WP:NPOV contains the following tenets: "Avoid stating opinions as facts", "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts", "Avoid stating facts as opinions", "Prefer nonjudgmental language", "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". In all, this comes down to the fact that the media at large have decried GamerGate as an anti-feminist and misogynistic backlash at a maturing industry that they've been insular about for years, and the cries from GamerGate supporters that say calling the movement and controversy misogynistic and anti-feminist as is stated by the majority of reliable sources somehow contravenes these tenets of Wikipedia which no one bothers to read because in their mind "neutral" means "50/50" and not "present it as it's presented elsewhere" because they automatically assume the media is 100% against them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem here isn't that the wikipedia article reports that the majority of the media make the claim that GG is about misogyny; the problem is that the wikipedia article is written in a way that leads the reader to believe that the truth is being reported. As for "equal representation", that is a misconception. What people are asking for is that wikipedia directly reports on what has actually been said. I.E if it can be proven by linking to actual evidence -- that GG is about journalist corruption, then this should be mentioned in the article or at least that GG supporters make this claim. This however isn't what Wikipedia is doing, Wikipedia is just reporting what news outlets have written. Since this article is actually about GG's claims that there is media corruption, only using "established" news media as a "reliable source" (lol) is bogus. Why would established media write articles about how they themselves are corrupt? See how that works? As such, if Wikipedia is only going to be based on these types of "reliable" sources, then it would be better if the whole Wikipedia article was purged as a whole since it does not actually report actual information.--Thronedrei (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No. The problem here is that POV pushers advocating for the GamerGate movement are insistent in denying that multiple news sources, that are not the video game websites that the GamerGate movement is fighting against, all have come to the same conclusion and that conclusion must not, according to the POV pushing editors, be attributed as a fact. You cannot go conspiracy theory and claim that all media is against GamerGate and therefore only the sources that the GamerGate editors put forward, namely anything put out by the extreme right wing or conservative leaning news media that are going "GAMERGATE IS ABOUT FEMINISTS BULLYING POOR MALE GAMERS" as has been consistently the case, are allowed here is not how Wikipedia works. We are not mitigating the fact that misogyny and sexism and harassment and death threats have been intertwined with GamerGate more than anything about its claims of corruption in video game journalism just because the GamerGate movement wants to insist that these statements on misogyny are merely the opinions of the authors at multiple different news media, such as the BBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, etc. rather than just the Gawker windmills being tilted at.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait, are you making the claim that if a news outlet reprots something, then this magically becomes facts? Is that what you are saying Ryulong? You see, what many in GG argue is that established media has a vested interest in this. For instance the gaming Journalistic sites could be said to be extreme far left in their views. And what "old media" outlets report on this if not the far left ones? This of course suggest that these media outlets have a vested interest in supporting their journalist "friends" on the Internet. Also, if you actually watch any of these reports you will notice a distinct lack of actual representation of both sides. These media outlets only invite people that claim they have been harassed or in some other way are already famous. In an post (that was deleted) I mentioned this briefly, but I wont go into details this time... but you can check yourself. These reports are all about the "victim" getting a free reign to tell their story, the interviewer never asking any tough questions and basically presenting the idea that what these people claim are facts, this despite no evidence of this actually being presented in the show itself. So, no -- based on their actions these media outlets can not be trusted to be objective.

Also, it is funny how you mention that "extreme right" media articles wont be allowed on here as source, then you seemingly champion extreme left media articles?--Thronedrei (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm making the claim that if fifty news outlets come to the same independent conclusion that it's probably a fact. The BBC, New York Times, Guardian, and CNN should have no vested interest in what a bunch of video game news websites have to say about anything. You are seriously going "IT'S A MEDIA CONSPIRACY AGAINST GAMERS" here, as well as denying the fact that the people being discussed in this article have even been affected by gross attacks because of GamerGate, leaving me with no real way of refuting anything you say. I'm not going to be responding to you any further.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What you call independent I call collusion. Non of these articles ever present any real evidence of their claims and they all are written in pretty much the same way, even using the same jargon. Journalists are friends, they add each other on facebook and twitter. How can you call them independent when they are fraternizing on social media? The BBC, New York Times, Guardian, and CNN are all far left leaning media outlets with a great invested interest in supporting other left leaning media stay in power. So it isn't as much of a media conspiracy against gamers as it is just "business as usual" as far as media is concerned. Its all about the money and staying in control of the narrative. That is what I am saying. Again none of these media outlets have provided any evidence that these people that were harassed were so because of GamerGate. Wuu posted on Twitter. Check her interviews yourself where she admits harassing GG supporters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1U1cT72JBc&t=2m57s She thought it was funny. Yes, posting things that can be considered harassment is indeed funny? Or: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETVcInunAss&t=2m4s Making the claim that she was harassed due to Gamergate is silly, since if she was harassed, it was because she was harassing people right?--Thronedrei (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said previously, it's clear you're convinced that there's a mass media conspiracy against gamers so there's nothing more to say on this. Or your complaints about Wu's gamer bro account or whatever it was that people keep calling a sockpuppet when she admitted it was her from the beginning.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And as far as I'm aware nothing you've written has been deleted. It might be in one of the dozen archives this page has but it does not look like anything was deleted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I made a claim about Brianna Wu, while able to prove this linking to youtube interviews he has done, I did not actually link to it in my post. So it was deleted and I was given "Final warning" for violating Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Which also made me wonder, how can a first warning be a final warning?--Thronedrei (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Swedish media outlet "NyheterIdag" reports on Gamergate and journalism corruption

Speaking of reliable sources, recently Swedish meida have been writing about Gamergate and about how media is trying to push and spin a false narrative. The articles can be found here: http://nyheteridag.se/svenska-dagbladet-jamfor-gamergate-med-breivik/ And here: http://nyheteridag.se/nu-har-gamergate-har-natt-sverige-visar-sig-att-svensk-press-ar-en-del-av-korruptionen/ Wikipedia wanted some reliable sources and there you have it.--Thronedrei (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you show this has a reputation for reliable information in Sweeden? Halfhat (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So I've only taken a brief look at this and Google Translate isn't always the most reliable, but... the alleged issue "discovered" is that a Swedish journalist is Facebook friends with two people they interviewed. Really? Seriously? That's what the movement is going to hang its hat on? Because that's not meaningful evidence of anything. Facebook is widely used for personal and professional networking and being Facebook friends is not even evidence, much less proof, of anything unethical or improper.

I'm not particularly familiar with Swedish media, but this outlet's Twitter account has fewer than 700 followers, while the major newspapers in Sweden have 70,000. Suggests to me that, at best, it's a marginal source, and the claims made seem rather outlandish. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

per WP:FORUM please refrain from posting your personal opinion. If the source should be included at all then it should only mention that fact. Avono♂ (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussing a source's reliability and the credibility of a claim in the context of whether material is suitable for inclusion is precisely what an article talk page is for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The site has been referenced before on a small page, I couldn't find much on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czon#External_links and it's meant to be linked on this page, but no clue where Halfhat (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, these are both unsigned editorial opinions. If we decide Nyheter Idag's opinion on GamerGate is notable, I would not object to using this article as an example of the opposition to the mainstream POV. I would strenuously object to including any reference of the absurd claim that there is any meaningful ethical issue with being Facebook friends with someone. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The claim is absurd? Naturally one can add people on facebook without truly being friends with them, but does that mean the point isn't a valid one? If a person is friends with another person then they are immaterially compromised right? The same reasoning need to be applied in this as in court cases. You can't have friends of a suspect do the actual investigation of the suspect right? So when a journalist writes an article concerning his friends and he paints them up as heroes... then that article could no longer be considered a reliable source right? "NyheterIdag" also mention that Swedish media (much like how other media have compared GG to ISIS) have compared GG to "Breivik". Breivik is a convicted bomber and massmurderer in Norway for those of you that aren't familiar with his work. So NyheterIdag" was pointing out the absurd way media was handling the GG issue.--Thronedrei (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the claim is absurd. No, journalists do not become "materially compromised" by being connected with someone on a social network commonly used for professional and personal networking. Journalism has nothing to do with legal proceedings. What next, "a journalist had a drink in a bar with two developers during PAX, so s/he is biased"? Journalists are not monks, robots or jurors and there has never been any ethical, moral or legal prohibition against having professional social relationships with your peers, colleagues, etc. In fact, a significant amount of reporting would never take place if not for the development of such relationships. How do you think reporters gain the trust of sources, develop deeper insights into the issues of what they're covering or make the contacts that aren't listed on someone's website? They, yes, talk to people in social gatherings. Real reporting doesn't take place at staged press conferences — it takes place after hours when your source has had a couple beers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Either way it really doesn't matter, so please stop this. Halfhat (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

A journalists job is to report information and news, not propaganda and opinions. If said journalists is actually part of the news themselves or friends with the object of the article, then they can no longer be considered objective which should in turn disqualify them as a reliable source in the case of the news subject. If a journalist had a drink with somebody then no, that would not disqualify them, if said journalist had a drink with a person and then sex or something, then THAT would immediately disqualify them as a reliable source. Interviews that are given to friends can not be seen as anything other than just advertising. So to answer your unasked question -- no, I would rather these interviews go away. If they go away then these people that give these interviews would be forced to talk to actually unbiased journalists if they wanted to inform people of something. Journalists are not robots, but they should only deliver facts, not propaganda. Andy journalists that express personal opinions should be fired!--Thronedrei (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

per Nyheter_Idag on metapedia (spam backlisted) it seems to be a very small fringe newspaper, therefore it isn't reliable. However I do not find the claims absurd its just dosn't have enough evidence and can therefore not be inserted. Avono♂ (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The article mentions the newspaper "Aftonbladet". Aftonbladet is far left newspaper. Of course pretty much all the major newspapers in Sweden are far left, so I guess you can't call them "fringe". Only reason why "nyheteridag" would be considered fringe, is because it isn't far left.--Thronedrei (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

even if the news paper isn't "fringe" it is still not a reliable source, we have to wait until this "connection" is repeated by other outlets. Avono♂ (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

But in this case it is pretty much an impossibility. All the major newspapers in Sweden are faaaar left leaning, some like "Expressen" have even been reported to... well, just do a search for "Swedish Expressen" and you'll know what I'm talking about. That said, In Sweden all the major newspapers are pretty much one and the same. They are all "facebook friends" so to speak. So expecting some other news outlet in Sweden report on this is pretty much impossible since in doing so they would report on their friends right? As with everything else though, I feel this should be included in the article at least as a "A Swedish outlet media reports on Journalist corruption in other Swedish outlet media regarding GG" Because we don't actually need another outlet to report the same thing for us to include in the article that a Swedish media has reported this.--Thronedrei (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

though luck then since No Original Research is allowed we have to just wait till the "impossible" happens. Avono♂ (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, how about this article written on the minor Swedish Internet news outlet "motpol"? http://www.motpol.nu/oskorei/2014/10/01/gamergate/ I feel it gives a pretty balanced view on things as it also points out the far left agenda that dominates the Swedish media. Or how about this article also from NyheterIdag: http://nyheteridag.se/gamergate-nu-reser-sig-spelnordarna-upp-mot-eliten/--Thronedrei (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

While this seems to be taken care of, for future reference I'll confirm that nyheteridag.se is a fringe newspaper in Sweden, founded by the extreme right. The same is true for "motpol", which is a neo-nazi site. The description of all the major newspapers in Sweden as far left leaning also doesn't match reality. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll- Remove the political views sections within GamerGate activism

I don't see how it adds any value, just a lot of bloat and unneeded opinion. We don't need every thought on it ever to have it's own section. Halfhat (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Vote

• it doesnt make sense as "political views" under "gamergate activism" (but "gamergate activism" doesnt make much sense itself) - the content is probably appropriate for a "reception and analysis" types section. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

No.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have nothing to add then there's no point saying anything. Halfhat (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom Have you seen how long that section is, what does it really add, the article is unusably long. Halfhat (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

GG Branding

From Fast Company (a strong RS for business matters). Supports inclusion of Vivian James image and more importantly the adapted GG logo that should be used in the header. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

And to add that that article does note there was a problem with the color scheme as fuller explained in [1] but that they've look past. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the looked past it. Most of the article is about the color scheme. — Strongjam (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is literally titled "The Secret Meaning Behind Gamergate's Branding", I don't think that's looking past it at all. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, when I meant "they", I meant the GGers unaware of the color scheme attachment. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The significance of the colour scheme is a myth. My observations are the GGers are aware of the existence of this myth. Jgm74 (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't really get this thing with the colors. If you know any color theory, purple and green are complementary colors and complementary colors are commonly used together. Picolo is a green character with a purple outfit because of color theory, not because of any lewd sexual reasons. The article could be used to establish that Vivian James is often used as a Gamergate mascot, but the assertion that purple and green are secretly representative of rape should probably be attributed as an opinion if it's to be mentioned at all. YellowSandals (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Read the article: it does a pretty good job of making the case that at least some of the people designing the character were in on the joke. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't make a strong case of anything. There's of .gif of Picolo having anal sex with Vegeta, which they mention is seven years old, and based on the fact that Picolo uses complementary colors, Vivian James is a secret rape joke because she also uses complementary colors. I joked earlier that we should try to link Gamergate to the death of Mister Rogers, but I was mocking how ridiculously biased all this nonsense has been. I wasn't seriously implying that we should seek any tenuous evidence to tie Gamergate to the pettiest and most insubstantial claims of evil. YellowSandals (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not an accurate description of what the article is saying. It describes the history of the meme and the use of the color scheme to reference it on 4chan. It then outlines the threads where the color scheme was proposed and points to instances of references to the meme being made in response to that color choice. The 'complementary colors' line is a red herring: purple and green are not the only colors that complement each other, and this was not a random choice made in a vacuum. It's not as simple as 'purple+green=rape.' This color choice was made on a forum with a history of using that color scheme to reference that joke, and by people making direct text references to said joke. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

This is conspiracy theory level stuff, Tara. Once McIntosh started telling everyone that "purple and green refer to an old rape joke" then yes, people started seeing it that way. However, that doesn't mean that having good color coordination is a red herring to distract from an evil, subconscious message. I used to have a friend who wore a purple T-shirt with a green sweathshirt. YellowSandals (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

From the article: "Yet, in the initial forum discussion that led to the Vivian James design, a draft of the Vivian character with her distinctive color palette got plenty of “thanks, doc” replies, as did an anonymous illustrator who a few days later posted a first draft of the now standard GamerGate logo, showing a stylized video game controller with purple and green G’s." Kaciemonster (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So you like that the reliable source can be used to discuss Vivian James, except for the part where basically the whole thing is pointing out that the colors reference a rape meme. Quite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I have heard that green was chosen because of the green clover of 4chan and purple because of color theory. Racuce (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to a color palette (even the orange can be explained by this): http://paletton.com/#uid=30H0X0kYp++++XE+++BVy++SO+Z Racuce (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, based on how the sources write this, it should be described that the green/purple is a color scheme commonly adopted by 4chan (an origin of GG), that scheme itself in part based on the Picolo meme, but that's lore of 4chan that not every 4chan user knows (due to its high revolving door aspect). As such, the creators of Vivian (and subsequent the GG controller logo) used the 4chan color scheme, and that sources have noted they may have been unaware of the color scheme's origins and unintentionally introduced the Picolo meme colors into the GG logo. (They might have been fully aware too, but at least these articles give the benefit of doubt it was an possible mixup) --MASEM (t) 17:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Luckily the internet keeps records of its own insanity. Apparently it is an old meme, but thanks to spreading the idea that Vivian James is based on it, it's gone from relatively unknown to trending. Galleries show the "thanks, doc" thing has been applied to a lot of characters sharing these colors, including but not limited to Barney the dinosaur. YellowSandals (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That 'mitigating' information does not appear in the source from what I can see. We don't have to prove that every 4channer would know the meaning of the color scheme for it to be relevant, as it's clear from the article that many who contributed to the character's creation did. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

4chan is an anonymous image board. How would you prove the individual intent of anyone there? YellowSandals (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Anonymity doesn't enter into it: the evidence that the article presents shows that multiple references to the rape joke were made during the discussion of the character's design. This is a reliable source for the subject of this type of design, and the conclusions it presents are sound. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You can't pick and choose like that, Masem. Almost this entire story is describing how the logo references a rape joke and how that damages the movement's public credibility when it claims to not be about misogyny. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I never said we can't talk about how sources see it as reference to the Picolo meme; that's clearly there (with the source required to otherwise avoid the original research of your claim). But per the FC article, the GG people including TFYC group pushes the fact that this was not intentional - the FC and BB authors see this differently as that is their opinions that we can include. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's probably fine to include a reference to TFYC's response to the FC claim here. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Questionably color scheme aside; how would this work with WP:NONFREE? — Strongjam (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Under non-free, besides this source, there's other sources that describe the connection of the Vivian character to be representative of the GG movement; add that the coloring scheme presents some interesting issues, and the NFCC#8 (contextual significance) barrier is clearly passed. If the only thing we could say about Vivian was "she is GG's mascot", that woudl be insufficient, but there's plenty of discussion now of the character itself to qualify for an image here. --MASEM (t) 17:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So did you actually find a source that proclaims that Vivian James' color scheme is that of the daily dose?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I don't think that there's any particular need to have any non-free images representing the movemetn on the page about a controversy, Masem.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The comment from the RS Fast Company pointing out the scheme bears a close resemblance to the meme is right there. Also, this is a page about the controversy and the movement - it makes no sense to treat the topics separately as they are far too intertwined here. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to have non-free images of the movement's iconography on this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I am curious about why it is claimed to be a rape joke. The author seems to be relying on the description given by KnowYourMeme, but there is no clear reference to rape anywhere it is mentioned except KYM and people citing KYM as a source. When it is brought up on 4chan or other meme sites there is no mention of rape that I can tell, just sex. We can't really know what the motivations were of the person who posted the version with purple and green, let alone if anyone there really saw it as a rape joke in the first place. This seems to be more of an opinion, rather than a factual statement and should be considered as such.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just describe it as "an animated gif of the Dragon Ball Z character Piccolo sodomizing the character Vegeta". Or we go with what the sources say which is their definition of it being a rape joke instead of hemming and hawwing over the specifics as usual.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

We have one source that really talks about it and another that basically just quotes it. I think the most we could justify is like a sentence, maybe two, stating that some believe it is a reference to a rape joke. The author of the piece makes a circumstantial case for it being a reference to daily dose, but one that is still subject to interpretation and only establishes it as a rape joke by linking to KYM, which is not a reliable source. We cannot treat this as fact given the level of uncertainty surrounding it. For what it is worth, TFYC responded to this allegation a while back.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It to me looks like a quick turnaround from praising KYM for having "balanced" coverage of GamerGate when now something salacious is being linked to it. He makes enough of a case that the author can be quoted, but I don't think that there's much of an argument to include the non-free images of barely known provenance on this page when we can just describe the colors.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate (pun intended), perhaps the "thanks doc" comments occurred to the posters by coincedence? The internet has a strange memory. I myself, when I looked at the daily dose swf first, didn't think of anything, I just saw... well you know. It was only after it was highlighted that, piccolo has purple and green colors, and vivian's hoodie has purple and green colors, that it kinda made a weak connection, emphasis on weak. Its that thing where you don't notice stuff until its pointed out to you. Now, concerning this to the article, the connection is too weak to actually be included. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 04:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)(For all its worth, her hoodie could have been another set of colors and someone would have whined)

"Playing Devil's Advocate" actually has absolutely no place in WP: we work by doing research using reliable sources, not by concocting theories about scenarios where those sources could be wrong. -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The source for the "rape" thing is basically trying to disguise theory as fact. Its one theory against another. Also The Incredible Hulk is now rape I guess. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 06:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No and no. Contrary to what the bad examples on this page may have taught you, you can't actually dismiss a source you don't like by saying 'it's all just opinion.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Legalities of online threats and the issues with law enforcement dealing with the harassment

[2] This is from Urban Institute so its a decent RS (not great, but for the fact they point out, they are fine) - pointing out that online rape and murder threats are federal crimes (but not general harassment), but that due to lack of reporting the federal gov't cannot do much about these. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

"So, why have there been no prosecutions? A big part of the answer, I suspect, is that no victims have reported the crimes they have experienced." Looks like uninformed speculation: we have sources for high profile victims reporting their harassment to the FBI. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Clearly Quinn, Sarkeesian, and Wu have, but they're talking about the others that have been harassed here, with the implication that others have not spoken up about what they've gotten. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

And that's nothing but speculation based on the author's opinion. Can you show evidence that the author is qualified to draw the conclusion that 'no' victims are reporting these crimes? Because this is actually a question that is independantly verifiable, and we have direct evidence that the author's 'suspicion' isn't the case. If we'd like to include speculation on what the lack of prosecutions means, Slate has a far better article on this, based on information from a former FBI cybercrime agent rather than the author's guesswork. What information would you like to see added to the article based on your source? -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Both of them, but using other statements from the Urban Institution one, to point out the basic fact that the FBI cannot act if there's no crime being reported, and some of the victims may not be reporting due to fear of the "wolf pack" mentality of GG. The Slate article I've pointed out before and that's great to describe that the FBI is usually out of its ability and resources to track down those doing the harassing. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, of course they can't act on crimes that aren't reported. But I don't think that this source is a good one to show that fact is particularly relevant or significant to this issue, as it seems to suggest that the lack of arrests is the victims' fault when there are other sources that demonstrate the difficulty of prosecuting these crimes which are far more likely to be the real reason for the lack of arrests. The conclusions this article draws are flawed, and we have sources that say so. It's very clearly an opinion article, and given that its information is flawed, I don't think it can be used as anything but the author's opinion. So we need to establish that the author's opinion on cybercrime is particularly notable for the opinions to be useful. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so harsh on it, Tara. I don't read it the same way; I think it's acknowledging the difficulty in reporting such crimes because of the fear of reprisal and because local law enforcement generally ignores them. I don't think we need to take him literally when he says "no victims have reported the crimes they've experienced" — it is likely that relatively few of the massive volume of such threats have been reported and it notes that underreporting of crimes is a common thing. For example, I received death threats on my personal talk page over this nonsense... I didn't bother reporting it anywhere, but perhaps I should have.

It's also another source which notes that no matter what individual GGers might say, the movement as a whole is viewed as a fount of violent threats and harassment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Even with my stance on the nature of this article, the qualification of targets being scared by a "wolf pack" mentality is an important pull quote that describes the unavoidable behavior of this. (There's other sources that have likened/claims GG is a hate mob, this fits in line with that in showing the impression GG has made to the press). --MASEM (t) 21:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Following on legal issues: Brianna Wu's reward for a convinction on those that sent her death threat, and her side legal fund to help anyone that might have been defamed from the harassment. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What I find amusing about that piece (aside from the boutny hunter part) is that the article calls what Wu did as "speaking out" but call people responding in kind "harassment".--Thronedrei (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a qualitative difference between mocking someone and threatening to rape and murder someone. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Top priority for removal of this article

This article can be cleaned/improved by the removal of all "Eric Kain" quotes, which are erroneously listed in the article as coming from Forbes, but actually come from a personal blog that Forbes does not oversee. These sorts of deceptive "contributor" (read, personal) blog entries have been ruled as a no-go as sources across the entire site. MediaMaven3 (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have proof of this?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure - if you click the external link, you will find in the body text of the blog post the description

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

The "Contributor" status is also very clearly explained in the Terms of Service for the site. "Contributor" blogs are

• personal blogs maintained by a Forbes user who is not hired to write for the company,
• not subject to Forbes editorial oversight or even examination,
• subject to oversight by Forbes staff only to resolve complaints or address violations of the ToS.

The best way to address this issue would almost certainly be by removal of the information until a notable or reliable secondary source could be found. If there's a case to be made that the article itself has become notable, it still isn't Forbes, and at the very least it must be made clear that this is a personal blog for the individual quoted. MediaMaven3 (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering if there had ever been a consensus discussion about whether those blogs are reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, at WT:VG - we have identified these are not normally reviewed pieces for Forbes (I'm sure someone reads to make sure they aren't overall derogatory or the like, but not for fact-checking), so only a few of the people that have posted there have been deemed reliable based on their past performance/other jobs, like Paul Tassi and Kain (which is a metric allowed for SPS type sources). That said, I would consider these weak RS that should be removed unless they are expressing a key statement or opinion that cannot be expressed otherwise. If there is a large consensus about Forbes otherwise, I'm not aware of. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, Kain's opinions are minimal, AFAIK, and his first piece was simply used to support several statements on the facts of GamerGate rather than his own opinions on it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Could I get some clarification on this Ryulong? The way you word it sounds to me as if you are saying that Kain's statements (see unreliable source) were being used to support a narrative as if it was a fact. So, could you elaborate on this a bit? I would appreciate this very much. Thank you.--Thronedrei (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The way you're wording your response sounds like you're putting words in my mouth. Erik Kain's piece, before it was suddenly decried as a terrible OP/ED in this thread, was being used to cite various general statements on the events of GamerGate and not any "narrative".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not putting words into your mouth, I'm just trying to get to the bottom with what you are actually suggesting. AS for general statements, if Kain was the only "reliable source" for these statements, even if they did occur... if we don't have any reliable source to actually cite them, then these statements can't be included in the article per WB rules right?--Thronedrei (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Glad we're in agreement. As the article unfortunately contains a lot of pull quotes from this article and information erroneously claiming Forbes as the source, we will have to do some work to remove and improve. Do we have any other sources for this information beyond the sentence topic's personal blog? MediaMaven3 (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

On the Kain pieces on this page, this is cited 7 times, 3 of which are his opinions and the other 4 accompany other subsequent citations. This piece is supporting content on the Shadow of Mordor controversy and does not contain his opinions. This is also cited once, and is accompanying another source. This is a citation of his opinion. This is accompanying content on GameJournoPros.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The shadow of mordor bit is actually sort of wrong on the page right now. It reads as though Zaid Jilani is talking about the mordor game (which he is), but it's cited to Kain. The whole paragraph is cited to Jilani, so the Kain bit is mostly redundant. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It was at the time the only source I picked explaining the game controversy in the context of Jilani's statement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I would support removing most of the Kain references on this basis. Protonk (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree we should remove all opinion pieces from the article. Let's stick to the pure facts. That's the only way we'll get anywhere. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That can't happen, even at a more conservative level. The opinions of some (both sides) are central to the controversy (eg Alexander's piece setting off the groundwork of Operation Disrespectful Nod). --MASEM (t) 21:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

We also cannot remove all opinion pieces from here because they give real world context to the happenings, and also because it seems that POV pushers here cannot differentiate between opinion and media consensus, considering that multiple people are arguing that "misogyny" is an opinion by the media.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that's a very valid suggestion made at the Arbcom case page to remove non-narrative opinions for now until we are far outside of the reactionary period, so we are only treating this as a fact recap until we have more far-removed sources instead of at-the-moment responses. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There is never not going to be a reactionary period the way the GamerGate movement keeps targetting new things that go against them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no getting around the fact that a large number of media sources are opinionated, not just Kain. As far as I am concerned, there is no good reason for removing these pieces, but I do believe certain sections should be summarized.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Erik Kain is OK, in this instance. Forbes is magazine, it's also a content farm, Kain writes for the latter so his opinion does not get a instant greenlight. In March, I started a discussion at WP:VG/RS to explicitly list Forbes as a situational source. Generally, I discourage the use of Forbes contributor posts, but in this case, third party reliable sources have valued Kain's thoughts on the subject so I'd give it a pass.[3][4][5] - hahnchen 04:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

  Kain seems to have more or less stopped writing about Gamergate - for a while there he was cranking out multiple pieces per day. We have a history of over-reliance on him as a source, but I don't think that necessarily means he needs to be removed altogether. But is there a more accurate way to describe his relationship with Forbes? The phrasing does seem to imply he's a staff writer. --

  Sounds good, Hahnchen. How about we use this phrasing to address the above concern — "Erik Kain, a contributor at Forbes.com." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

  I made an edit in September to state that Kain was writing on the website and not in the magazine, so I'm fine with this. - hahnchen 14:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@OpGamerGate

There doesn't seem to be a section on the little bit with @OpGamerGate, where "Anonymous" wanted to take down GamerGate, and after another "Anonymous" started looking into it, they vanished from the face of the earth? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 04:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No reports on it. The OpGamerGate twitter account was managed by people not really considered "Anonymous", in that they're pretty hated by most of them Loganmac (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've heard that AnonOps was furious about this. There is the eternal question of who is considered "Anonymous", though. Also this video, again, made by "Anonymous": YouTube -Anonymous Message to #GamerGate (There's another one which was bait, took the anti-gg side and then turned out to be a joke, just search "gamergate anon" on youtube)--DSA510 Pls No Hate 05:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

But on the point of this and the article, I don't think its notable yet, since it was shut down so fast. However again, this does not rule out third party trolling/harassment. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 05:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Do we have any reliable sources on it, other than the oblique references to trolls from The Washington Post's interviews? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It happened but it hasn't been reported in the media - no reliable source. Jgm74 (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

HEADLINE: Today nothing happened. I am confused at why someone would think we should/would cover something that didn't happen? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If there was messages then something did happen. Messages were sent right? How can we cover "threats" sent on twitter if we don't cover threats posted on youtube? Or do we only cover treats if the one being threatened cries on media?--Thronedrei (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No one bothered covering "the messages" either. Wikipedia does not run on internet gossip. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If the BBC ran an article saying the sky was red, would it be acceptable under WP:RS? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 05:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a small formating advise

I suggest you put the Christina Sommers image under the Social Criticism title. Currently the "Presence of misogyny and inclusiveness" section is way too short and screws up the formatting leaving a giant white space under it Loganmac (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Her photo is next to where she is discussed like everyone else.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I know, her opinion should be moved to the Social criticism section, personally I don't get what "presence of misogyny and inclusiveness" is supposed to be about, given that the title is already "Role of misogyny and antifeminism". And both Sommers and Berlatsky's opinions fall within what Social criticism is. Also devoting a whole section to two sources seems kinda weird Loganmac (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

JournoList

Would an admin kindly remove the claim "who based the group off JournoList"? It's not found in the source—the Ars Technica article neither states nor implies what (if anything) he based GameJournoPros on—plus from Talk page discussions it's clear the connection is meant to reflect poorly on Kyle Orland and others on the list by implying unethical, partisan behavior like that ascribed to JournoList. Woodroar (talk) 05:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Another request would be to unlink GameJournoPros.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems this was not stated in Orland's piece, but in one of the leaked e-mails.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Imgur is not a reliable source. (Of course, not saying you were saying it was, TDA.) We should let a reliable source backup that claim. Woodroar (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Source needed to support false accusations

Seems some things have improved here since I last checked. A more neutral 'concerning misogyny' without any of that longstanding/ingrained nonsense. The first paragraph seems so wonderfully neutral I felt comfortable moving on to read the 2nd.

The controversy began when indie game developer Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleged that Quinn had a romantic relationship with a journalist for the video game news site Kotaku. This led to harassment of Quinn, including false accusations that the relationship had led to positive coverage of Quinn's game.

I think unless we can properly source this claim that we ought to remove the 'false' and simply say:

including accusations

Is there any actual evidence that the accusations are false?

We should certainly present any criticism of the accusations (counter-arguments) as well as the evidence people claim support the accusation, and let people come to their own conclusions by weighing it. I don't think Wikipedia should declare 'false' unless it's INCREDIBLY overwhelming.

It would be one thing to say that the proposed evidence of the accusation is not conclusive or convincing to whatever Wikipedia's standards are, but there is a difference between an unproven or unsupported accusation and a false one.

Calling an accusation false is like saying there is absolute proof that it must be false. If this is the case, I would like it if when the article becomes opening to editing (or if a moderator could do it now) if a reference could be linked next to the word 'false' which explains the evidence that exists proving that Quinn could not have possibly had a romantic relationship with a Kotaku journalist.

I haven't seen any proof for or against this claim, but I think if we are going to call it false there must be overwhelming evidence existing to disprove it. Otherwise I think we should just neutrally convey the claim and call it 'unproven' until presented with evidence of it being true, but should not call it false unless very strong evidence exists falsifying it.

Falsifying something like this sounds incredibly hard since it's possible to have secret relationships, so I'm wondering how this could possibly be done. Ranze (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE. Try reading the talkpage: this is a settled issue. Pushing to treat the accusations against Quinn as anything other than false appears to be just about the only way to get topic banned from this article. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

As TaraInDC said. This is a settled issue. Also, the false accusation is the positive news coverage by Grayson, which is non-existent. Hence 'false'. — Strongjam (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources? Off the top of my head: The LA Times, Time Magazine, Washington Post, The New Yorker. And that's using only first-rate sources. I'm sure you could find many more if you go through the references currently in the article. CIreland (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

To be exact, the allegations about getting positive coverage is not fully proven wrong. Getting a review, yes, and absolutely is the only one that we know didn't happen (there's no review), but there is the issue of, for example, Grayson's piece about GAME JAM that has been argued by the proGG that it remains a valid issue and wasn't proven 100% false - though it is clear the press does not think this particular article was "positive press" in the same manner a review would be. That said, "refuted" is a much more accurate word than "false" here. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

False is fine. This specific instance of 'false' is used to refer to a positive review that does not exist. The other press mentions were confirmed to be before the relationship began, so false is fine there as well. — Strongjam (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If the sentence was saying "for a review" instead of "for positive coverage" , "false" is absolutely right - no one has been able to demonstrate one exists. But it is technically wrong to say that "positive coverage" claim is false because there does exist known examples of Grayson's writing about DQ, though well before it was established their romantic relationship stated. I'm fully on board that the press is going "that's being really petty on the details" and generally considering any of those allegations no longer worth discussing, but the technically right term here is "refuted" - Kotaku, Quinn, Grayson, and even Gjoni have all said there was nothing like this they were aware of and the press has readily accepted that claim. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Many sources that comment on the matter simply say that the allegation of a favorable review was false and do not address the other allegation(s). Where the allegations in the plural are remarked upon, it is dismissively (The New York Times, for example, has Some of the crusaders against Ms. Quinn justified their actions by constructing flimsy conspiracies) or outright call them false. Here are some example links for you:

• Despite the fact the journalist in question did not ‘review’ the game and wasn’t found to have allocated it any particular special treatment
• the accusations against Quinn were proven untrue
• Despite the allegations being proved false
• That post was written by Elon Gjoni, the ex-boyfriend of game developer Quinn, and seemed to insinuate that she'd slept with journalists in exchange for positive coverage. A later update from Gjoni clarified that was not the case.

CIreland (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Nature of the controversy

It seems to me that these two sentences are contradictory:

Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy which started in August 2014, concerning misogyny and harassment in video game culture.

The controversy began when indie game developer Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleged that Quinn had a romantic relationship with a journalist for the video game news site Kotaku.

If the controversy is about misogyny and harassment, it can't have began with the blog post, since the blog post wasn't about those things. Either the controversy began with the harassment, or the controversy is also about ethics or something else directly related to the initial blog post.

Thoughts? Λυδαcιτγ 15:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The blog post caused extraordinarily vicious and widespread harassment of Quinn, and that is generally regarded as the start of the controversy. Would you prefer "it began after indie game devleoper..."? -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Misogyny and harassment issue came up after the allegations at Quinn, so logically the controversy cannot solely be about misogyny and harassment. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The controversy as described in RS centres on misogyny and harassment. The article doesn't even say it's solely about that. Not sure what is being argued here. Does anyone have specific content changes they want? — Strongjam (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the 'people calling the things gamergate does misogynistic' part came after the 'gamergate doing the things people called misogynistic' part. That's how cause and effect works. That doesn't mean that the controversy isn't about misogyny and harassment. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Accusing someone of a conflict of interest is not inherently misogynistic. Yes, the pattern of behavior extrapolated back would suggest it is part of the same, but again, when you have a debate between two sides, one arguing against the statue quo, it is the norm to talk about their side first even if it is the minority view. Denying that ethics are involved even if the proGG claims are not thoroughly documented, and weighing heavily on the press's opinion of the matter considers that claim false, is not how one writes a neutral article. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course accusing somebody of a conflict of interest is not inherently misogynistic, but that doesn't prove a thing any more than the first question in your RFC does. This isn't as simple as 'they accused a woman of doing a bad thing - that's misogyny!' no matter how much the gaters in their echo chambers are telling themselves that's the case. The problem is who they accused, and how, and on what evidence, and what happened after the accusations - the death threats, the rape threats, the midnight calls to parents screaming 'you're daughter's a whore!' To an outside observer it's clear that the 'ethics' angle is a thin justification for the harassment of a woman. This is how social commentary works: people making reasoned observations. Those are the concerns that the sources talking about this issue are expressing. That's the reasoning being given for describing this in the way the vast majority of our sources do. A single source noting this harassment and discussing its effects and implications would not prove anything, but in aggregate, the large body of sources all discussing the same issues and doing no more than name-checking the 'but ethics!' counter argument do demonstrate that this is not a controversy about ethics.

The gleeful dissection of Quinn's sex life was never about ethics. That claim is not merely 'not thoroughly documented,' it's not 'documented' at all. As I've said before, there's no room on WP for playing devil's advocate. You need to use sources and policy to back up your claim. A personal theory for how the absurd drama gamergaters created about Zoe Quinn's sex life might not be misogynistic isn't going to cut it. If you'd like to use the fact that the harassment came before the backlash as evidence that gamergate is not about harassment, provide sources that show that there was good reason to be 'concerned' about Quinn's 'conflict of interest.' We're not interested in your opinions, only what you can prove. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

NPOV is all about playing Devil's Advocate - trying to present all sides of an argument in balance to the coverage in the sources. And it is very much against NPOV to shoo away any proGG discussion given the fact that mainstream sources have attempted to provide clear rational discussion on their side. As such, we cannot pretend their ethics argument doesn't exist and favor the popular opinion of misogyny over that. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it absolutely is not. Playing devils advocate involves constructing a case to defend someone or something. As you did it above it constitutes original research, not a proper application of WP:NPOV. Presenting the sources we have, weighted appropriately and avoiding fringe views, is not the same thing as 'playing devil's advocate.' So your explanation for how a mass harassment campaign against an indie dev (and, importantly, not against the journalist who supposedly gave her preferential coverage) 'might' not be misogynistic isn't helpful. You need to make your case with sources, and not merely by 'playing devil's advocate.' We're not pretending the ethics argument doesn't exist, we're just not pretending that it's what the controversy is about, because per our sources it is not. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What kind of harassment excactly? Criticism is not harassment. General negativity is also not harassment. Remember, when stating harassment, it has to be specified. Also what needs to be specified is the percentage of people committing harassment. --Artman40 (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What WP policy are you talking about that requires all of that? — Strongjam (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Threatening to rape and murder a person is harassment, as well as criminal. Threats directed towards a woman because of her gender makes it misogyny. The nature of the "controversy", i.e. the title of this article, is centralized on those misogynist threats directed at Ms. Quinn, the initial target, and subsequent threats made to media and other types who condemned the harassment. Tarc (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Threats directed towards a woman because of her gender makes it misogyny. That the threats were made towards Quinn et al because they were women is not proven. It's a pattern of threats against primarily women, so it is likely misogyny, but you cannot state that factually just based on a pattern. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I can and will state such a thing, as will our article. If reliable sources call it misogyny, then that is sufficient for our standards. The opposition by a handful here to this point is long past the pedantic stage. Tarc (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Then you are willingly going to violate NPOV. The court of public opinion does not make it fact for Wikipedia's purposes. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It does not violate NPOV, it preserves it and protects it from attempts to give undue weight to a minor point of view. I find it baffling how you can so mis-apply basic Wikipedia policy here. We write articles based on what the sources say; if a preponderance of reliable sources say that Gamergate is about harassment of women and not about ethics, then that is what we say. We're not declaring it is true, we're just reflecting what the prevailing consensus of sources is saying about he topic. Remember the old verifiable, not truth canard. Tarc (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The "verified, not truth" creed readily applies to much of the proGG side - I can tell you want they want, ala "the truth", but I cannot verify it because of the lack of sources, hence why we can't cover it. And we can more than certainly verify that the press considers much of GG misogynistic and the like, easily verified. But one has to recognize that the press are speaking their opinion on the matter, and have the most volume here as the court of public opinion which does not make it true, which "verified, not truth" does not apply to, that's where the core of NPOV comes in. The press have all jumped on their opinion based on the pattern, but there's nothing to back it up. Take the École Polytechnique massacre again - the public opinion on that is decidedly that it was a misogynistic-driven attack, but our article reflects the fact that the reason he did what he did is not clear with strong assurity. That's the same situation here - no one has looked at the actual people involved (or in fact identified them), so we should be writing that in the same clinically neutral manner described all views with a balance dictated by the predominance of the press side from the sourcing. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That's the polar opposite of what "verifiability, not truth" means. No one cares what you think is true here, nor what I think is true. All we can do is reflect how reliable sources report on the matter. It doesn't matter if the anonymous crowd are truly misogynistic in their intent, all that matters is that the vast majority of reliable sources characterize the GG movement as such, and that characterization is verifiable. Tarc (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

However there is a systematic bias in play as the sourcing that is against the proGG is nearly all opinionated against it, a case outlined in WP:BIAS. If the press reported a suspected criminal of being guilty before the legal case was complete, we on WP would not report the criminal as guilty but note the press has. That's the same we should be (and for the most part are) doing, per Strongjam's comment below), but it is getting very close to falling past that point. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What nonsense. The only WP:BIAS is that a bunch of geeky western internet trolls caused enough harassment and enough sources blabbering on ABOUT FUCKING VIDEO GAMES that they have a more complete article about the trouble they have caused than most leaders of countries in Africa, Asia, or South America. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If calling the actions misogynistic is a WP:NPOV issue, then of all the uses of misogyny in the article there are only two that I think might fail:

• Because these discussions often featured verbal attacks, misogynistic harassment of Quinn and others
• Upon additional threats towards Sarkeesian, Wu, and Day, the international media focused on GamerGate's predilection for violent, misogynistic threats and its inability to present any coherent message for positive change.

The rest all are either attributed to people, or clearly summarizing what a number of commentators say. I don't think this is a huge POV issue and could be easily fixed if this is what the issue is. — Strongjam (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, right now the article does a decent job avoiding stating it as fact (outside of the above, and the first lede sentence), but we're at the cliff edge and need to be careful and aware it's very easy to fall from that. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Cut it out, all of you. Can you not see that just warring over neutrality has made this article a bloated unusable mess? The article isn't even readable. Neutrality matters, but other things matter too.HalfHat 16:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfhat (talk • contribs)

If this article were really well written, you know what it would do? It would open with a lead that quickly summarizes the controversy in a chronological order, properly and impartially attributing points of view - that means without directly accusing any one side of ethical or moral wrongdoing. The lead wouldn't say journalism is bent, and it wouldn't say Gamergate is misogynist; it would say "these people hold these stances".

Afterward, the article would be organized in a logical fashion with neutral headers that let the reader know what they're about to read. We would not place Gamergate supporters under their own special header labelled "Role of misogyny" with a picture of a Gamergate supporter under there - we would just have articles that read "Harassment", "Media response", "Political commentary", and the like. Headers that could go any direction and that could be used to sort out any opinion or important development regardless of how vague or specific.

For example, under a "Harassment" header, we might start by explaining what happened with Zoe, drop in some details, if any, about revenge harassment against Gamergate (because no side has been immaculate, thank you), carry on with the additional harassment issues the press have brought up since the initial ones, then make a sub-header explaining police response to these threats and how they've been handled - if possible, how it may affect handling online threats in the future. LOGICAL INFORMATION A READER WILL WANT TO KNOW FOLLOWING THIS INFO. You see how having sane, neutral headers could allow us to actually organize the page!

A bigger thing is, not everyone coming to this page is a Gamergate enemy or supporter. A lot of people coming here just want to know what Gamergate is and how it impacts THEIR PERSONAL LIFE. They don't care whether or not certain Wiki editors think that Gamergate is a bunch of misogynistic hobgoblins, because whether or not the movement was forged in the fires of Mount Doom is kind of irrelevant if the article doesn't explain why any of this is even important to anyone in the first place! And presently it does a terrible job of explaining how it's relevant to anyone! Because it focuses so exclusively on establishing Gamergate as evil hobgoblins!

I would really love if it we could just agree to establish a straightforward article. However, we can't seem to get over the ideological hurdle that there is evil at work and that it must be exposed. As if some of us don't realize that people are just clever chimps and that, if anything, there's a great deal more knee-jerk emotional reactions than nefarious plans - at least as far as anyone knows, until we can otherwise reveal Dr. Claw is behind all of it. YellowSandals (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I really feel like I need to place particular emphasis on this: Whether or not you think Gamergate is misogynist is useless information to anyone who does not care to be part of the conflict. It is a moral judgement that provides NO factual information to a reader and it doesn't explain anything to anyone who doesn't instantly believe how "factual" that moral accusation is. By focusing so much on the moral particulars - that's what's made this article completely useless to any readers. The average person does not come to a Wiki page to see, "Oh, the KKK are immoral bigots! Great! That's all I needed!" They come to learn about how and why the KKK was formed and other factual details they won't hear from a frothing idiot who knows nothing more than that "the KKK is bigots 'cause they done bigot things". YellowSandals (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Misogynist thing is misogynist. Your moral judgement of that is your own. Artw (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not something is misogynist is determined entirely by context! Such is the nature of moral opinion! It is not something you can measure like heat or the distance to the sun. It is something an individual person comes to an emotional decision about based on the information their limited personal perspective allows them to have. This logic DOES NOT WORK. It doesn't make a good, informational article. You could argue that "stupid things are stupid", but you wouldn't write Wikipedia leads by saying "This article's subject is stupid", even if you had a large number of sources that agreed with you.

I am so sick of hearing this. What madness drives you to think that you can objectively understand the rationale of people you have not even met. Even if you knew these people personally, you still couldn't read their minds! Who qualified you and the journalists to be the undisputed arbiters of misogyny? YellowSandals (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"How can anyone know anything, man? What if we are all brains in tanks!" seems a bit beyond the scope of this conversation. Here we just go by WP:RS. Artw (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not metaphysics, and it boggles my mind that you would think of it as such. That you'd have such a hardcore, religious belief in misogyny that you think you can just feel it like God's light or something, and questioning its presence in some people is akin to questioning the entire universe. And then you go and influence the article with this thinking.

You know, as far as I can tell, this conflict mainly revolves around vicious mobs. One side is angry because they're constantly getting thumped on by a bunch of twenty-something moral extremists, and the other side is angry because the reaction to that constant thumping was so terrifyingly volatile. There's extreme elements mixed in there making prominent news, but that's because it's an angry mob! And who do we find on the Wikipedia talk page but a collection of editors still trying to give these people a moral thumping! And you wonder why this hasn't wound down at all over several months! For goodness sake, you could diffuse this by just being neutral and letting people feel like they aren't trapped in defensive corners! YellowSandals (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WE are not giving anyone a "moral thumping", the majority of reliable sources are doing that. We are writing an article based on that. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

And thus that is an immediately failure of NPOV. We can describe the "moral thumping" that the press has given with numerous sources, but we are absolutely not allowed to take their side. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Until you get consensus to declare NPOV dead, you are stuck with it. And you need to stop beating the dead horse attempting to get something else to apply here. NO. We follow NPOV as it has been approved by consensus for the whole project. Deal with it.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This applies to saying things in WP's voice. Wikipedia cannot say the antiGG side it right, though it can lay out all the quotes that justify why the antiGG side sees the proGG as bad and evil and all that. Similarly, Wikipedia cannot say the proGG side is right. As the bulk of the accusations on either side are all opinions and not fact, they are all required to be attributed to something else besides WP's voice. That's NPOV. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Masem, you don't even know what you're objecting to anymore. I just said what you said, "We can describe the "moral thumping"". Describing it isn't taking a side, any more than describing Israeli apartheid actually takes the side that Israel actually is practicing apartheid. We are going to describing that it is the prevailing point-of-view, though, and that "but ethics" is minor. Tarc (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Your statement implied otherwise, so my bad if I misread it to mean that we were going to criticize GG in WP's voice. Documenting the opinions in that vein is just fine, however. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is written to intentionally cast a group in a bad light, which has made it not only sloppy because it's constantly slanting everything with circuitous wording, but also virtually worthless because nobody but the invested parties really cares which side is GI Joe and which side is Cobra Command. Of course Gamergate thinks it's GI Joe and anti-Gamergate thinks they're GI Joe. A lot of news articles have declared that Gamergate is Cobra Command. However, these are all moral opinions. Worthless, empty calories in an article functionally composed of packing peanuts. You do not just say, "Everyone agrees Gamergate is Cobra Command" like it's a grade school playground. This is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to inform people of who, what, when, and where. That means that Wikipedia says, "These people agreed Gamergate was Cobra Command, but Gamergate insisted it was GI Joe". You don't write the entire article trying to prove why Gamergate should be recognized as Cobra Command and why Gamergate is wrong. YellowSandals (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No, this article itself does not take a "side", and if it paints the "but ethics" crowd in a bad light, that is because it is reflecting what the majority of the outside world sees it as. The Wikipedia itself is not saying that Gamergaters are misogynist harassers, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the BBC, and countless others are. Your beef is with them, much the same as the American conservatives who call them selves "Tea Partiers" scream about the "liberal media" all day. In both cases, that's just kinda...too bad. The Gamergater concern about ethics in gamer journalism will be mentioned, but it will be done in a way that makes clear that the media considers it a minority point of view, almost to the point of outright dismissal. Tarc (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Go! Go look at the Tea Party article! Under "Teabagger", it says, "News media and progressive commentators outside the movement began to use the term mockingly and derisively..."

You see how that properly attributes point of view. It says who uses the slur and why. Look, I will relent on this as soon as you can tell me a rough estimate of how many cubic centimeters of misogyny are present in the Gamergate movement. Until you can quantify something for me, this "misogyny" thing is a derisive moral accusation, and one that appears to be pissing the Gamergate movement off. The Tea Party page doesn't set out to explicitly represent that group in accordance to their morality, and it is a bad example to support your argument. YellowSandals (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, the point WHOOSHED over your head. It has nothing to do with however Tea Partiers are talked about in the Wikipedia. It has to do with your complaints about how you're pro-GG side isn't being represented fairly by the media, which is the same thing they say. To which I respond "too bad". It isn't the Wikipedia's problem to deal with perceptions and opinions of media bias. If the media is predominantly critical of Gamergaters, then the focus of this article will be on that critique. If you think the media is biased, this encyclopedia project is not the proper platform from which to fight that fight. An encyclopedia reflects the sources; it does not originate its own content, it does not distill what the sources say on a subject. 1. They say ---> 2. We report what they say. All of the pro-GG angst on this talk page directly stems from trying to bend that unbendable arrow that points from 1 to 2. Stop doing that., and we'll all be better off for it. Tarc (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Everyone make sure to familiarize yourselves with WP:NOTFORUM, this thread is veering heavily into that direction. Stick to the editorial content of the article and Follow the WP:Reliable sources as well as WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and W:BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 20:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate and the politicization of absolutely everything

Gamergate in a nutshell here [6]. I posted a template of issues a few weeks ago. This is another neutral observation of issues that define Gamergate controversy. --DHeyward (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That article gives voice and balance to what is missing from WP's article. The WP article is skewed very much to one side. Ezra Klein's piece highlights the fractured nature and politics that drive the coverage and POV. Our article is not a NPOV representation. --DHeyward (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This article has been brought up before. I personally think it's among one of the more valuable examinations of Gamergate so far, and I agree with a lot of it. However, it doesn't address many specific details regarding the movement or controversy. It would be nice for a quote, but I think the consensus was that it doesn't expand a whole lot on any hard information. While I agree with the take it presents, it's also one of only a handful that describes Gamergate as a symptom of widening social biases. Most articles so far just focus on moral accusations. YellowSandals (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"18. And no one should dismiss the very real, very dangerous harassment that's happening under Gamergate's banner." is what I have been saying for a month now, yes. Tarc (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice that nobody has disagreed with you, Tarc. YellowSandals (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Um, every editor that has ever tried to water down the opening line of "is a controversy which started in August 2014, concerning misogyny and harassment in video game culture" has disagreed with me, actually. Tarc (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize "harassment" was synonymous with "misogyny". In which case, yes. I guess we have been arguing about that. What I meant, however, using normal English, is that not even Gamergate has been downplaying the impact the harassment has had on their movement. They acknowledge it and have been intentionally trying to distance themselves from it! A lot of articles discuss this and are doing their best to prevent Gamergate from establishing that distance. YellowSandals (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, the sources cited don't really buy into the "Gamergater-who-isn't-a-harasser" shtick, they are all painted with one broad brush despite the pleas to the contrary. Again, that isn't the Wikipedia's problem to address. Tarc (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The article by Klein just did. He didn't filter out the uncomfortable voices either. Just matter of factly stated the issue. It isn't all misogyny and harassment. He also didn't dismiss those aspects. --DHeyward (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, I know you and the others don't like it when I make a controversial statement about another group to explain how your logic is wrong, but it seems to hit home so I'll do it again.

"The thing is, the sources cited don't really buy into the "homosexual-who-doesn't-have-AIDS" shtick, they are all painted with one broad brush despite the pleas to the contrary. Again, that isn't the Wikipedia's problem to address."

Okay, so if this had been about a group I assume you have no qualms with, you can see how your broad generalization doesn't feel like justice. I remind there was a time when it was broadly thought that AIDS was a homosexual disease, though we know better now. You need to understand, you are playing the role of a moral guardian. Your arguments are the same as the moral guardians before you. What you're doing is not revolutionary. It's tired, and played out, and thousands of years old. Additionally, you're using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy incorrectly. This is not "No True Scotsman". You're making a negative stereotype about a group of people, and then you're attacking the stereotype. Nobody is saying, "No true Gamergate supporter commits harassment so therefore harassers are excluded from the movement" here. We are saying it's biased to depict a movement using its most negative possible stereotype while using Wikipedia's voice to do so. Repeatedly, I have merely asked that we attribute points of view. YellowSandals (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

These comparisons do not 'hit a nerve,' and the 'I'm annoying people, so that proves I must be right!' attitude is simply juvenile. How can you possibly think a comparison like this is a good idea? Aside from being pointlessly inflammatory, it's not even remotely accurate, because "all homosexuals have AIDS" is not a perspective that is presented in even a tiny minority of reliable sources. This is essentially the WP:RS version of 'if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you, too?' The problem here is that sources who are in the habit of reporting as fact things like 'all homosexuals have AIDS' very quickly gain a reputation for being unreliable (as Brietbart has, in fact, for its own habit of publishing completely fabricated stories to harm political opponents.) -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

All you're espousing is the use of negative stereotypes to denigrate groups you disagree with, following a bandwagon to behave as though that's acceptable. Yes, the majority of public opinion doesn't hold this view of AIDS any longer, but several decades ago that was the case. This kind of thing is why it's important to remain neutral and write in terms of perspectives, rather than in concrete formats of "this group is wrong because everyone agrees they're wrong". We have a situation where gaming journals are declaring that gamers are dead and this is referenced to a group that was blamed for the Columbine Shooting and other violent sprees. Their critics have been publicly lauded and given prime television time to explain what's wrong with gamers today. Anita Sarkeesian and other critics have been calling gamers misogynists for a while now, using the backlash against that to fuel politicization of the topic as this article discusses. But yet you want to depict this battle as one of good versus evil. You want to throw gasoline on a fire - that's all you're doing with your contributions here. We could write from a neutral perspective and not add to the vitriol, but Wikipedia has failed in that so far. YellowSandals (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

please stay focused on this article and on the sources talking about this subject and NOT on your presumptions of other editors motives (or wildly inappropriate analogies) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You have used every possible form of mental gymnastics to justify writing one group in this controversy as the bad guy. You are presently writing an un-readable article that has very little relevant information in it. The vendetta against Gamergate is basically killing this thing. They see themselves as the victims here, and you want to keep attacking them. I'm telling you to knock it off. Do it on your blog if you have to. But for Wikipedia, stick to the facts. This is not the place to denigrate groups you dislike or to report negative stereotypes as being factually honest. YellowSandals (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not a "negative stereotype" - it's an observation of what the group has mostly done. Repeating "it's about ethics in gaming journalism" like it's a magic talisman does not provide a shield for harassment, and the fact that the movement has not raised any meaningful issues of "ethics in gaming journalism" in months is something that reliable outside observers have taken judicial notice of. It is not "stereotyping" to define a group by what it does rather than by what it says. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hat off-topic WP:FORUM. Dreadstar ☥ 23:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You know, have you ever argued with Neo-Nazis? I get around the internet. I have. They're frustrating. You know what they say about their stubborn, bigoted views? They say they're just making factual observations about other people. Like they've got the world figured out. Selfish ideologues are all the same, and the rhetoric is identical across the entire political spectrum. Nobody bills themselves as the bad guys. Not the KKK, not the Nazis - nobody. So when you attack a group of people through a medium that's supposed to be neutral, why is your justification the same repetitive, droning nonsense I hear from Neo-Nazis explaining their misanthropic opinions? Being able to dislike a group for reasons you can justify in your head does not make you superior to any ideologue or inquisitor before you. Any fool who convinces himself he's above such mistakes will quickly fall to those mistakes. This article is too ideological, and it's written on the attack against a specific social group. This is not appropriate. YellowSandals (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I decline to further discuss this issue with someone who compares me to a neo-Nazi. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I compared you to a human. YellowSandals (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC) No one has disagreed that it's an element of GamerGate. Your argument that it's the only thing or that it's primarily about any single thing is addressed quite nicely in that article as the view of social justice warriors. There are equally narrow views that GG is only about journalism ethics. There are many elements and facets of gamergate. Balance and NPOV require a more overall view of issues brought up by GG, including harassment, game journal ethics, game developer ethics, role of politics in gaming, etc, etc. --DHeyward (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Where are the sources that focus on the "but ethics" aspect of gamergate? Cause there are dozens and dozens that focus on the harassment and per WP:UNDUE it will take at least several that focus on something other than the harassment to merit coverage that does not almost entirely focus on the harassment.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

By neatly discounting conservative sources, there are only liberal sources left. This article gives credence to the use of Breitbart as a source as the argument is political. --DHeyward (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There is really only one conservative source that has been discounted here and that's Breitbart (website) due to their history.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

And that is not due to their history of being conservative, it is due to their history of not being reliable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Not according to Ezra Klein and this piece. It finds Breitbart reliable enough to cite and gives voice to pro-GG POV instead of only anti-GG POV. Klein is hardly a conservative and is very reliable. He took Breitbart on its face as a reliable source for GamerGate. His judgement is what should add Breitbart as a reliable source for this article. --DHeyward (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:RSN. Best of luck. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

RSN is not the place for case-by-case assessments for inclusion. Klein is reliable. He cites specific Breitbart published articles, not Breitbart. Per the guideline, case-by-case reliability applies and use by Klein and Vox is a compelling argument for inclusion. --DHeyward (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:RSN is the perfect place to get an independent assessment of a questionable source, case-by-case or no. There's an existing consensus, and not just on this page, that Brietbart is not a reliable source. No amount of discussion at the article talkpage level can override that: you need to make a case at WP:RSN. If your argument that another source mentioning Breitbart articles is enough to justify including them in this article is sound, you should have no problem convincing editors there. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec) You must have missed this on your way to 18: "14. It's worth stopping for a moment to say that Gamergate, as well as the reaction against it, isn't any one thing. It includes horrifying, probably criminal, harassment against pretty much any women who dare oppose it. It's partly an argument about what kinds of games the gaming press should cover — and, by extension, what kinds of games developers should make. It has members who want clearer disclosure policies in gaming journalism. It has a lot of people who joined because they hate feminism and internet "social justice" warriors. And it has many people, on both sides, who are far surer about who they're fighting than what they're fighting about." --DHeyward (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of putting something up from this. But more importantly I think we need to strip a lot out of the current article. Also I thought I posted this, did I forget or something? HalfHat 21:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre and inflammatory analogies on the talk page

Yep, the Nazi comparisons stop. Dreadstar ☥ 23:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If we could avoid bizarre and inflammatory analogies on the talk page involving Hitler, Gamergaters as homosexuals with or without Aids and the KKK and instead focus on more down to earth things like Wikipedia policy and reliable sources that would probably help keep things running smoother. Thanks. Artw (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC) That's one of the points I was making in my post above. With the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate very clearly stating that an editor who "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process can result in "blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the scope of these sanctions, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." I'd advise sticking to the editorial content of the article and not veering off into WP:SOAP. Dreadstar ☥ 22:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I actually believe that making analogies in good faith with appropriate amount of discussion and reason to back them up is not disruptive--for example, the Hitler thing was making a point at the neutrality that has been a issue at this page for quite some time. Their point was that no matter the person or the subject, their article is still soundly neutral. But I can understand where it can get filthy with inappropriate analogies such as 'So X editor of page, do you consider us worse than Hitler because he can have a better article than us?' That's not appropriate for discussions, but the former one very well is in my view. Tutelary (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I would add comparing fellow users to neo-nazis to that list. Artw (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC) The ideological tone of this article is an issue with the editorial content of the article. Dreadstar, when a major factor of an article surrounds dogmatic opinions and moral relativity, how is it usually handled? If this were an article that included multiple, unattributed statements about the "factual" sinfulness of homosexuality, rather than about the "factual" misogyny of angry video game enthusiasts, how would this be resolved? I'm not sure an ideology really yields to any form of argument. I've done my best to cite Wiki policy and make my case in an objective way, but eventually I keep coming back to comparisons to neutral articles - which are, of course, rejected on the basis of a dogma at work here. So far, civility has been the losing side of this whole thing. By taking a conservative approach that relies on discussion and consensus, it allows the article to be aggressively edited by parties claiming universal absolutes. I don't honestly feel like everyone is fighting with their gloves on. YellowSandals (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC) And if it continues, this thing is going to ARBCOM. I'd really like the admins to step in a bit more aggressively and enforce that WP:GS/GG. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I'd also like to add, every time somebody new comes in to discuss the bias in the article, they get hounded off. My impression is that the hounding will continue until everyone who feels the article is biased is either banned or gives up and moves on to something else. The analogies I'm making are not bizarre. I have argued with Neo-Nazis and other more commonly known radicals - I've been in good and bad neighborhoods, some with some real social problems - I'm seeing very familiar rhetoric being applied across this talk page. There was a time when reminding people that the Nazis were human was seen as a valid and meaningful thing, because it meant any of us could turn to such evil in the wrong circumstances. There are very polar views at work here, and I don't think it's in poor taste to remind anyone that the road to hell is always paved with good intentions. This article is perpetuating rifts and conflicts regarding this debate - I don't think it's a positive thing at all, and I'm starting to feel strained about seeing so many flippant dismissals when I ask to consider the relative morals at work. YellowSandals (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Yeah, as others have pointed out, the fact that these other groups/people are being mentioned are not an instance of Godwin's Law to compare any person involved or any editor to these grourps which would clearly be a violation of the sanctions, but instead to point out how WP normally handles articles of people or groups that clearly could be said to have lost their case in the court of public opinion (overwhelming negative commentary towards the party) that WP does not take that same tone in the writing of these article. It is very relevant and should be seen as absolutely not a civility insult. --MASEM (t) 23:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC) No, Masem. YellowSandals literally compared what I said to what he thinks neo-Nazis say. "Why is your justification the same repetitive, droning nonsense I hear from Neo-Nazis explaining their misanthropic opinions?" That's not pointing out anything about what Wikipedia says about anything, that's just plain old comparing me to a neo-Nazi. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC) You say, "We're just making factual observations about Gamergate supporters" in reference to negative moral accusations. As the Neo-Nazis say, "We just make factual statements about the Jews, or about black people". You're just making negative stereotypes about a group of people, then billing it as fact and telling people how factual it is. Do you think the Neo-Nazis don't have their info-graphics or their opinion articles? This sort of rhetoric treads an incredibly fine line, and you don't seem to understand where that line is. The whole article is written without any awareness of that line. Zigging and zagging across it, then looking up innocently and saying, "What, I'm just making observations about a group". You think that isn't going to anger the group you're talking about? It's not fair, it's not appropriate, and it's not the way Wikipedia should handle a delicate subject! YellowSandals (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC) First law of holes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Listen to me. There are human beings involved in this debate. There have been attempts to air out the sexual fetishes of those people as well as other shots at slander. You tell me to stop digging a hole that's going to get me banned from Wikipedia. I'm telling you to stop digging a hole that's purposefully agitating a larger conflict. YellowSandals (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC) So I guess that's a "no". Admin, please administrate. Artw (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I guess it's a minority perspective, but I think we're all adult enough to survive someone making a bad analogy or two. If arguing poorly were reason enough for a ban, none of us would still be here today. If someone makes a dumb or unconvincing argument, just ignore it. Protonk (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC) It's pure disruption. FWIW the KKK article calls them violent against African Americans and a hate group, so the argument that we use kid gloves elsewhere doesn't even hold. Artw (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Meet Gamergate's first political candidate

Of marginal importance, but might deserve a sentence somewhere: Ramon Ramirez, Meet Gamergate's first political candidate, The Daily Dot, Nov 4 2014.

The same article was also published in the Washington Post: [7]

Further coverage in The Mary Sue and The Austin Chronicle Andreas JN466 22:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I was going to post that earlier but then I noticed it was basically a Daily Dot source, and while interesting it was posted through the Wa Post without comment, still begs it as a questionable RS and not sure if needed/useful at this point --MASEM (t) 00:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with the daily dot? By passed through, I suppose you recognize it passed through their editors? --DHeyward (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Dot is generally considered a reliable source. Not sure there is much we can justify beyond a sentence as Andreas suggested.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd really like to see us move off non-mainstream sources unless it is a point that is critical and only can be substantiated by weaker but otherwise reliable sources, simple to remove any claims of media bias. DD is one of those types of sources. --MASEM (t) 05:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The WaPo reference, Vox reference by Klein and others, shows there is a political story that isn't nearly as one-sided as the Wikipedia article. In fact, acknowledging it as a political issue with one sifde calling misogyny/harassment and the other calling it journalism ethics is entire controversy. No NPOV reliable source discounts these views. Neither view is the "right" view nor is either view extreme. The article in Wikipedia is extremely biased to the extent that liberal editorials are covering the issue with more neutrality than the article. Ezra Klein's piece in Vox is a liberal POV piece that understands the gamers' complaints are not without merit. It contrasts sharply with the Wikipedia article which should be more neutral than a liberal editor's piece on the same topic. The first step is acknowledgin that GamerGate is political topic that reaches beyond Gamers, Developers and GameJournos. This coverage and others make that clear. --DHeyward (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Klein nowhere says that the complaints have any sort of merit. What he says is that "It has members who want clearer disclosure policies in gaming journalism." This is a statement of fact — it is true that there are such members. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be some sort of intricate trolling attempt. (inb4 whining about WP:RS) Kelly's speech is oddly similar to this Clickhole hit piece on the pro-gg side: [8]. But of course, due to WP:RS being zealously upheld when it fits the narrative, this will be disregarded as non-notable, like the mounting proof of third party trolls, which, due to heavy pushing of No True Scotsman, also isn't being acknowledged. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 05:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, she already pulled her vid <redact blp violation - don't speculate on motivation> --MASEM (t) 05:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There are many things being speculated, however I suppose its good to wait until evidence is compiled. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 07:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

International Communication Association

The International Communication Association has an article in their newsletter about Gamergate. I'm not sure if this is a WP:RS though. If it is then it could be useful for talking about OperationDiggingDiGRA, and the history of harassment of people doing gender studies in technology. — Strongjam (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I am aware there is a third organized activity that the proGG side is doing that is aimed at DiGRA (Digital Games Research Assoc.) that they feel are problematic, which this above is likely relating too. (I do see that DIGRA has issued its statement about GG). However, I have yet to find any sufficiently good RS to post this, but this would definitely be part of that. --MASEM (t) 01:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

DiGRA "publicly condemns the harassment and bullying" of anyone as does every person and organization on the planet. The whole problem with this article can be summed up as saying that one side supports "harassment and bullying." No one denies that harassment and bullying has occured. No one supports harassment and bullying of women or journalists or gamers. Framing the debate in those terms is a gross NPOV violation. --DHeyward (talk) 07:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the GamerGate movement has been tainted by excessive harassment and bullying and cannot extricate itself from this fact no matter how many people say "but ethics". GamerGate is equated with supporting bullying and harassment and it's not a violation of WP:NPOV to say so.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No, reliable sources has framed the GamerGate "sides" properly as a political statement. Trying to anchor one side with unexcusable behavior is a political tactic (similar to equating Islam as a "terrorist" religion). Partisan voices can drown out the message but it is hardly neutral to describe or frame GamerGate as simply "harassment and bullying." Saying that the views of gamers can't extract itself from the bullying and harassment that has occurred is like saying Islam cannot extract itself from 9/11. Surely you can agree that 9/11 occurred but that Islam is more than just one defining moment. GamerGate adherents describe it in mainstream sources as nothing to do with harassment and bullying. Surely this view is relevant enough to be included just as all of Islam is not framed as view of terrorists. There are indecent acts that are relevant to GamerGate and should be covered but not to the exclusion of all other views. --DHeyward (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Well that's a new analogy. Islam is a defined group full of people that have leaders and spokespersons and the such. There are plenty of clerics and imams and scholars to go "We are not ISIS. We are not the Taliban. They are extremists." GamerGate is an ill-defined nebulous group of online anonymous personages that go on and on about how "we totally want to root out corruption in gaming" without having done anything except foster hatred.

As many GamerGaters go "we're totally about ethics in gaming and not about harassment of women" there are just as many that bring that perception down. You can go on 8chan or KotakuInAction any day of the week and find thread after thread attacking the "Literally Whos" or whatever they're using rather than trying to do anything to change ethics in video game journalism. GamerGate has done nothing since Kotaku et al added clauses for Patreon, Indiegogo, etc. into their ethics standards that vary from site to site. The only thing going on now, at least from the context of this talk page, is the constant declaration that statements by writers at the BBC, The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, among every other link posted here by editors who actually have some fucking evidence to back up their claims is that this article is far from being biased as far as reliable sources go. Every single GamerGate POV pushing editor who has been coming here has been crying foul that the word "misogyny" is used in this article at all and are claiming that all of these news media are somehow conspiring against them and GamerGate as an entity when that is so far from the truth and a total conspiracy theory.

GamerGate was never about ethics in gaming because the whole reason it came about was found to be completely and utterly false. Nathan Grayson never wrote any review for Depression Quest. There is no review on Depression Quest on Kotaku. Nathan Grayson writing an article for Kotaku that features Zoe Quinn or something for Rock, Paper, Shotgun, which lists Depression Quest amongst 50 other steam games does not equate to corruption. People being roommates is not corruption. This movement has effectively ignored an actual instance of corruption in gaming no matter how many times TotalBiscuit says that's not the truth. This movement has focused entirely on women who dare to speak their mind about anything. There is nothing from any prominent men involved in this, directly or peripherally, that says that they have received death threats or have done anything to react to actual things that are criminal acts. Nathan Grayson hasn't said he got death threats. Chris Kluwe hasn't been threatened. Wil Wheaton hasn't been threatened. I don't even know if any indie devs other than Phil Fish got involved in this but he flew the coop. The evidence against GamerGate being about ethics and instead being about hating women (inlcuding how their biggest heroes are the biggest anti-feminist and conservative talking heads out there) far outweighs any right wing nutjob going apeshit over Muslims says on Fox News.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ryulong. I'm worried you're going to get zinged for the above, although RS's do ultimately back you up. The thing about the subject (Gamergate) is that it is insidiously exploitative of false balance, with news media feeling the pressure to give voice to opinions that aren't based in fact just because they are loud and persistent. It is eerily similar to other modern conservative culture wars in that way, where the media are forced to spend time giving credence to climate change/creationism/etc, when we as a society could be spending that valuable time studying science, progressing and making society better for everyone (and making more video games of any political persuasion... and similarly, editing this article into a readable one, rather than contending with the same baseless complaints over and over). It is definitely something to watch out for in evaluating RS content and in editing this article (which I am not getting involved in, just have been following and wanted to comment). I would argue that the only reason "ethics in journalism" needs to make an appearance in this article at all is due to false balance, since it is certainly not borne out by facts and the majority of RS material. --Hustlecat ^{do it!} 09:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Cutting this article to a managable size

I know it's probably in vain, but to show the kind of things I think need done to fix this article, I have made a copy in my sandbox, and have been making the sort of changes I think need made to the real one. It's still very much a work in progress. HalfHat 08:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You conspicuously cut out a lot of content that is critical of GamerGate. Or that refutes GamerGate in some way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)