Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Sanctions enforcement

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

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

Gamestar.de addition

"eines betrogenen Ex Freundes" = "a cheated exboyfriend" WP:BLP (and bad prose)? (NM. Has since been addressed since I first looked.) I would like to review the article, but it's behind a paywall. Ideas how to review it? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sent Avono (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I object to the sentence that was added: "Gamergate supporters saw theses op-eds as a conspiracy to stifle their press criticism with a smear campaign which Michael Graf of Gamestar described as understandable but thought them to be an overreaction towards gamers who had overreacted to the overreaction of an ex-boyfriend." There is an elide part of the translation: "Dieser Eindruck ist nachvollziehbar, an eine Kampagne glauben wir aber nicht, sondern einfach an eine komplette Überreaktion. Eine Überreaktion auf die Überreaktion vieler Spieler auf die Überreaktion eines betrogenen Ex-Freundes." = "This impression is understandable, but we don't believe in this campaign, instead [we think] it is simply a complete overreaction - an overreaction to the overreaction of many gamers to the overreaction of a cheated-on ex-boyfriend." The key phrase that is missing is "but we do not believe it". I think the most that could be added without including "but we don't believe in this campaign" is "Gamestar thinks that GameGate is an overreaction". (And I don't think that's so interesting.) The sentence as added mangles the original opinion. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the prose is atrocious, not sure if it works in German or not. Perhaps we could phrase it more as "an overreaction by all involved." or something like that. — Strongjam (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Works fine in German. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Translation Note: "an eine Kampagne glauben wir aber nicht" could be translated "but we do not give credence to the campaign" or "but we do not give credence to the campaign's existence". The sense of the sentence doesn't work in English quite right. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Translation Note2: betrogenen is "deluded" in the sense of "hoodwinked" the idiomatic translation is cheated-on. However, the cheated-on runs into WP:BLP ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky: You added "not credible" (diff). The author says [...], statt einer Kampagne steckt aber wohl eher eine Überreaktion dahinter." – "eher" means "wahrscheinlicher", which translates to "more likely" or "more probable". He doesn't explicitly say "not credible". Adding that dependent clause emphasizes a part of the sentence that wasn't emphasized by the author. Further "eher" or "wahrscheinlicher" is a comparative adjective/adverb. Can you please revert your edit? -- Maklaan (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This part: "an eine Kampagne glauben wir aber nicht" I think the people using auto translations are not understanding this phrase.ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok the German part in the footnote does not say the overreaction is "not credible". Please add the complete quote to the footnote if it isn't accurate. However even with this taken into account, I'm not sure a verbatim translation of the German phrase is a best idea. How about: "This was described by GameStar as understandable overreaction." This phrase is better than what's there, however I'd probably be prefer for that quote to be gone altogether, I don't see what it adds. Cupidissimo (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer to remove the whole thing all together. I think the content of that article is covered by the English sources, and this one bit is just an opinion. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Cathy Young / Allum Bokhari opinions on Gamergate demographics.

After trying to reword it a bit to avoid making it sound like we were citing their opinion pieces for matters of fact, I removed the sentences citing Cathy Young and Allum Bokhari's opinions on Gamergate' diversity (that is, their statements that it contains women and minorities and therefore is diverse, for some meaning of diverse; and, implicitly, that this is a meaningful and important thing to say.) The problems are twofold: First, there's no reason to think we should give their opinions that much weight, given that they're just two random libertarian commentators; and second, as far as I can tell, they're replying to something that nobody else in the article is saying. That is, we have no sources asserting that Gamergate doesn't contain women or minorities, so we have only their personal opinions and perceptions of the conflict to indicate that this statement is important. They assert that they are answering some common argument by giving their opinions on Gamergate's demographics, but absent any actual sources outside their two opinion-pieces even touching on it as relevant, it feels like giving space to them here is giving their personal opinions WP:UNDUE weight. --Aquillion (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

We could say so much more about GamerGate if we had some demographic information but the nature of an online, decentralized, leaderless movement with no membership criteria and varying levels of participation prevents researchers from asserting exactly how diverse the group is. What is required is knowing how many women or minorities are participating compared to the total membership number and none of that information is available or is possible unless GamerGate evolves into a more structured organization. I know that I, for one, would be thrilled if we had some demographic data to incorporate into this article but that is unlikely to exist at this stage of the movement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The wording of the Ysmall oung/Bokhari-paragraph was pretty carefully hedged by assigning it to specific individuals. We don't have any super-conclusive statistical evidence about male dominance or anything else either, but this fact is repeated all over the article. Most criticism regarding misogyny is aimed at males or assumes that it's mostly perpetrated by males. The "we've never said it's not this way"-argument seems unfair. Overall, I'm very much against giving undue weight to pro-Gamergate forum nonsense, but I don't see how this would fall under that category.

Aquillion, what's the reason for singling out Young and Bokhari as "random libertarian commentators"? We've provided them all of two sentences on an issue which is a matter of opinion overall. How does that equate to "much weight"?

Peter ^Isotalo 11:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There are countless bloggers, pundits, and commentators who have posted opinion-pieces about the article's subject; our job as encyclopedia-writers is to parse from this the most relevant strains of thought (as well as comments from people directly related to it or particularly noteworthy in the field) and cover them in accordance to how they are represented in reliable source. Bokhari and Young's opinions don't fall into any of those categories -- they're commentators without any particular experience or expertise relevant to the topic, ones who openly say that they're interpreting the topic through their relatively WP:FRINGE strain of libertarian politics. This makes them generally inappropriate for the article. Of course there may be other commentators we could drop, and you should point them out if there's any you object to in particular, but I singled those two out because they don't particularly seem to represent any larger stream of thought in reliable sources beyond their own views, and because it feels like they were added back when people were using quotes from whatever commentators they could find to argue over the topic by proxy. We've cleaned it up and organized things a lot better since then, but in general I do feel that the article could use less focus on opinion-pieces from all sides. Most of the other ones, though, at least serve to characterize the general coverage of the topic or to provide in-depth analysis from well-known highly-credible sources, while eg. Young's opinion piece doesn't really serve a purpose beyond informing the reader of her personal opinions and views (which, again, if I read her right she is candidly saying are more about her libertarianism than about Gamergate.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

These two opinions have adequately been pov attributed, their opinions would only be undue if they were presented as fact which they are not. The reader is told from which political spectrum they come from giving the reader a context on how to weigh them Avono (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I dont think highlighting Young / Bokhari's "They are not all white guys!" is particularly relevant. Our article never makes that claim and I dont think any of the sources ever make that claim either. Its a pointless counter-argument to an argument that doesn't exist.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Not when we have an entire subsection on "Misogyny and antifeminism". Avono (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"There's a girl in our hate group - we cannot be misogynist!!!!!" ??? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Overall, we've been quite stern about WP:RS and other policies with those who want to include all kinds of random opinions from YouTube. In this case, I'm not seeing policy-related arguments against inclusion of Young and Bokhari. The wording before this edit made a perfectly matter-of-fact statement that two reliable sources (out of God dozens and dozens) have made the argument that Gamergate people might be more diverse. It was a single sentence after an appropriately long explanation of the majority opinions. What's the point in removing that by referring to extended conclusions drawn from their opinion pieces?

Peter ^Isotalo 14:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This comment is not helpful, and does nothing to advance this article. Demographic information, among other issues raised by these pieces, are very relevant to the article, and these sorts of comments are not arguments against it. If you have a good, constructive argument against using them, please share them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

While demographics might be helpful, there are none and cannot be any as you cannot have demographics for a non entity. Young / Bokhari 's opinions on the matter are no more than guesses. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Any statement about the gender or minority makeup (beyond the fact that there ARE at least some women and minorities participating) would merely be a personal impression. This is especially true on Twitter, reddit and 8chan where 1) users are frequently anonymous and 2) you can not even rely on gendered usernames to be accurate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

We have plenty of similar claims in the article about various aspects of the movement. Is there a reason beyond the sources being more neutral toward GG that we should seek to exclude this, or should we start the work of excising similar guesses? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have reason to believe a reliable source we have used is not reliable for this article, you're more than welcome to bring it up. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of a reliable source, it's about the supposed "guesses." Either reliable sources are used for such "guesses," or they're not. This picky-choosy stuff that seems to be motivated by position rather than claim is the problem. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have reason to believe a reliable source is 'guessing' about something, you're more than welcome to bring it up, as other editors have here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

For example, the issue of the negative/positive tweets from a few weeks back. But this is about using this specific topic and the questionable protests in play. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There was no "guessing" there. A reliable source who frequently analyzes popular sentiment hired a professional social media analytics firm and presented the results. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(unindent) The gaming Community, industry and gamer identity are described as "male-dominated", "traditionally-male", "predominantly young male". There's also a long list of scathing opinions of the Gamergate movements, often with plenty of quotes. Rightfully so, in my view! Sexism is rampant and the male dominance is obvious. This is also recognized by the vast majority of commentators.

And then we had a single mention of two dissenting voices regarding the composition of the Gamergate movement in a single sentence. This is now gone with the motivation that these particular opinions aren't confirmed by hard evidence. That's a rather uncompromising stance to take regarding minority opinions. Please reconsider this.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"male-dominated", "traditionally-male", "predominantly young male" do not in any way contradict or need to be balanced by "but there is probably a girl or two in there somewhere, too". There is no evidence that women played any major role in any part of GG: "male-dominated", "traditionally-male", "predominantly young male" are accurate reflections of the voices that have had any impact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If we have a reliable source that can point out that there are, in fact, women involved in the movement, what reason would we exclude it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Neither our article nor any of the reliable sources we are using says "There are only boys involved" - so there is no reason to specifically call out "Hey there are some girls" - unless it is to attempt to make a point like "Hey there is a girl involved so we cannot be misogynistic!" - why do you think it is valuable? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3]. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As Masem highlighted, the "male dominated" narrative has some holes in it upon deeper inspection. The article should clearly note that the movement itself is more diverse than perceived, as we have sources that demonstrate that obvious truth. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

1) What holes? none of those links say as far as I can see says either "Gamergate is only boys" nor "Theres a large percentage of girls involved in gamergate". 2) "Male dominated" does not mean "There are no girls" any more than an "objective review" rates a game on how fun it is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The cut text from Young's piece from the article was Although coverage has generally described Gamergate supporters as predominantly male, libertarian Cathy Young has said that she believes there are vocal female voices within it. in other words specifically addressing the preception of GG being male-dominated. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) again, that takes a complete misreading of "male dominated" to be "only boys" and then takes some "vocal female voices" to be "significant level of female participation." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not what the statement is saying; no one has said "males only" here. Young's point is that while GG has been characterized as male-dominated, she believes there are much larger female numbers in that population that the characterization "male-dominated" belies. That's a completely fair counterpoint to include. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

And what is her expertise in identifying the gender of anonymous twitter and chan posters that makes her unique interpretation one that should be recognized within the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The same expertise that the rest of the press has used, which is none. No one has undertaken or demonstrated a complete attempt to quantify the population of the GG movement at all, certainly not to the point that they can factually state anything (whether this is do to the unwillingness to do so, or the difficulty in doing so, we don't know). It is perceived as male dominated from several factors (the misogynyistic nature of harassment, that the tactics are those associated with a male-dominated culture, that this is a reaction towards an increasing diversity of the gamer population that puts the traditional gamer male at a minority), and certainly this is a logical conclusion, but still remains a supposition with no factual evidence to back it up. Young's point, which is just as valid as every other reporters' point which is using what can be visible gleened from the public forums, is that she feels the population of females is more than what "male-dominated" implies. This point is completely appropriate to include as a counterpoint. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What is your basis for the claim "the same expertise that the rest of the press has used, none"? And again, the fact that only Young is coming to that conclusion puts her interpretation seriously into the WP:UNDUE column-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

We'd have to really trim this article down if we were going to limit it to widely-held analyses. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I have seen zero data that shows the estimated breakdown of the GG movement population by gender or any other statistic. As such, there is no evidence to back up the claim "male-dominated", and so we must state this as a claim by the press since the statement is contentious. A single sentence counterstatement is definitely not UNDUE weight, and Thargor rightly notes. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

the data that you have is irrelevant. The analysis from multiple reliable sources is what we go by, and present it in appropriate proportion to which it is held. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The analysis is basically nonexistent. That's the point Masem correctly makes. We have a good claim from a reliable source that tries to break it down, and a lot of unsupported assertions. We go by the evidence, which is what is actually appropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

We do NOT have a "good claim from a reliable source " - we have a claim that is not supported by any expertise or data that varies widely from the other reliable sources. Thats clear WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Cathy Young is a well-known, well-regarded journalist making a claim based on data she's collected as part of her expertise that does not vary from any other reliable source's evidence. It's undue not to note it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

And again as the sole person who has come to this interpretation, how is it not inappropriate to include it?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

For the same reason other "sole" "interpretations" are included. Which is it going to be? Sole interpretations reported in reliable sources are okay, or not okay? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have a specific "sole interpretation" that you think does not appropriately represent mainstream views, please identify it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Recognize that UNDUE does not say to omit opinions, just to make sure their weight given is proportional to viewpoints. One sentence from a noted commentator is completely in line with NPOV policy, and in fact more so required per NPOV to be impartial if such opinion clearly exists from someone that is an expert in this area (gender-related studies). --MASEM (t) 23:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Obvious fallacy that we need to include everyone. Of course we omit when the size of the group holding an opinion is non measurable. And counter to policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

So we can measure this, and it's sourced reliably to boot. Do you have an actual argument against inclusion here? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As an objective source, to not include anything that is from the opposite side of the conflict is not appropriate. We aren't going every to achieve balance, but you cannot flat out omit or attempt to censor anything that is counter to the predominate point of view. That's not what NPOV nor FRINGE says. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:V is not WP:FRINGE. It clearly says that just being verifiable is not a reason to include. And WP:NPOV sub WP:UNDUE is clear - we present the views as close as we can to follow the reliable sources. That one reliable sources has the view that "my personal opinion is that girls arent as small a portion of gamergate as everybody else presents" is a clear VERY minority view for which we need a very good reason other than "its verifiable". IF she came from an expertise in analyzing gender of anonymous postings, then that would be a reason to include. we need to include something that doesnt make gamergate look like its all the stereotypical socially maladjusted gamerboy is not a valid reason - it is in fact prohibited by policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

We cannot say that RSes are wrong or counter their points in our words (that's OR, as outlined in the Newsweek article discuss before), but if they have not provided a means to judge their statements as factual, we are not required to take their statements as factually right (per WP:NPOV); instead simply presenting them as claims attributed to those sources. This stays true to the RSes and still will represent the predominate view, but avoid having WP make statements of fact that have no basis of evidence at all behind it. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think this has gone beyond article-related discussion. Could you consider focusing on content instead of one another's opinions?

Peter ^Isotalo 18:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I have followed GamerGate since late September and there are definitely women playing a role. From Christina Sommers to blogger Liana K, there have been women writing and talking about GamerGate in a positive way. I know gaming blog articles and YouTube videos aren't considered reliable sources except when they are not evaluating the arguments of what is stated but as evidence that these perspectives do, indeed, exist. As for male-dominated, one can easily find statistics from gaming associations that state that gamers are equally divided these days between men and women (partially due to mobile games). So, it would be simple to argue for the presence of women but for "male-dominated" claims, you'd have to track down more reliable sources. I believe that it is true but I'm not sure where that claim has been presented as a fact.

Ironically, it was a misunderstanding of these gender dynamics that partially caused GamerGate. Due to the statistics of more women involved in gaming, those "Gamers are over" were pointing out that the stereotype of young teen male gamer no longer reflected reality. This made the #NotYourShield campaign a little ludicrous because the authors WERE saying that gaming scene is more diverse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Where has CHS said that she supports Gamergate? She has come out swinging against "feminists taking games away from boys" but thats not the same. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can outright call her a Gamergate supporter, but she is absolutely opposed to those who are opposing Gamergate: [4] Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't particularly agree with either Young or Bokhari, especially Young , but I believe their libertarian views and criticism of liberal sentiment are of interest. I'm attempting a compromise wording focused more on opinions and views on reporting.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Liz's points above raises other points - 1) "misogyny in gaming" and "male-dominated" does not mean "there are no women in gaming". "misogyny in gaming" and "male-dominated" go to the power dynamic where women are attacked more. Trying to balance this with Young and Bokhari is wrong. 2) "stereotype of young teen male gamer no longer reflected reality" & "saying that gaming scene is more diverse" speak to diversity in gaming. Trying to balance this with Young and Bokhari is wrong. 3) Young and Bokhari are claiming diversity within GamerGate the context of this matters because part of that claim flies in the face of the analysis of #notyourshield. Unless Young and Bokhari have numbers to back up their opinion, I find it hard to justify including their opinion to address the idea of diversity of within GamerGate. 4) If only the pro-GamerGate side is claiming that the anti-GamerGate side is claiming that GamerGate is "male-dominated", and then Young and Bokhari are trying to rebut that idea, and then we, as Wiki editors, are setting up a strawman by proxy - an unsupported claim with responded to with an unsupported opinoin.

In any case, before including Young and Bokhari, we had better figure out what they are response to. Because from the above debate, it's not clear there is a consensus on that. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

And a parallel analysis to the gender composition exists WRT political composition ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

focusing on "the press should be saying 'but theres girls too' " misses the key points these two are making in the arguments. Young is stating that those women who are involved with gamergate are being called out as "gender traitors" and Bokhari is criticizing the coverage in general, from the starting point of "theres always two sides".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Young: I don't think we can use Young as the source for the point to her own counter-point. That's bordering on putting up a strawman argument. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Bokhari: Which two sides? The one where GamerGate is about ethics? This is largely covered including Bokhari would be UNDUE weight. What are the two sides Bokhari says exists that isn't about the ethics argument? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Who knows what he meant by that overly simplistic way of viewing the world. You can ask him i guess. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Including quotes from Bokhari from his own articles looks like including OR. I'm going to remove it unless someone can argue for it's inclusion that does create UNDUE for his opinion and doesn't need his OR about GamerGate to support his conclusion. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This is really getting hypocritical. There have been sources who called GamerGate 'misogynistic' etc in the gaming press (and that amount is quite broad although they never backed it up), yet when scholars state that statement isn't true (including scholars who have access to unofficial enquiries and polls), it suddenly isn't sufficient weight enough? Rightttttt.... MicBenSte (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, we should weight scholars in peer reviewed journals more heavily then blogs and political consultants. For example, Heron, Michael James, Belford, Pauline, and Goker, Ayse called it a "misogynist backlash." — Strongjam (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Not sure what you are saying, MicBenSte. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Political Views

I apologize in advance, I'm honestly so confused by this whole section that I'm not sure what question I'm trying to ask other than "What are we trying to do here?"

I'm not really sure what any of it has to do with political views other than the one line in the second paragraph about exploitation by conservative pundits, and even that is a bit of a stretch. What does the Gamer Identity have to do with political views? Or Misogyny and Anti-Feminism? Whose political views are they supposed to be?

I get the feeling that the section might be a remnant from an older article structure, but even if it isn't I think that we really need to look at it and figure out what we're trying to say, because it isn't clear at all. Kaciemonster (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It was "politics" in the grander version and not specific electoral, but you are right that as a header it was misleading replaced it with a more accurate "Social and cultural implications" - does that work better? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's definitely better than what it was before, thanks. Kaciemonster (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There used to be claims that GamerGate was along left-right lines. And then there were claims from within GamerGate that it wasn't. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think there's definitely room for a right wing politics subsection in this newly renamed section. It only just hit me, but we completely ignored that whole event where a republican city council candidate ran a pro-GamerGate election campgain.[5][6][7]. Conversely we've had the Tea Party condemn Gamergate, which also isnt mentioned currently.[8] Alongside the Sam Biddle stuff about "right wing vultures," and Young and Bokhari on right-libertarian alignment, I think there's a fair amount to work on here. Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosstopher (talk • contribs)

This is also where stuff like how Milo Y. and Christina Hoff Sommers are considered aligned with GG to promote their right-wing aspects (which is sourcable to good RS) can be stated. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this article already somewhat too long? Just because things happened in relation to gamergate doesn't mean we need to cover absolutely everything. GoldenRing (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No, its only 71k of prose - in the range where we don't have to split but be aware of that. Mind you, there is a lot that can be trimmed still from the article (we're still too quote-y, and where there is detailed minuta are things that can be summarized better in all parts of the article), but we should be identifying people that are named/notable that have been associated with either side of GG, like both Milo Y. and CHS. --MASEM (t) 02:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Before someone throws WP:TOOBIG up, that's 71k including HTML. 43k of plain text prose. — Strongjam (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Oops, yes, I misread the script output. We're well under any severe text size issues. --MASEM (t) 03:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess. I wasn't thinking so much of WP:TOOBIG as just that it covers far too much for what the subject is. GoldenRing (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been giving this a lot of thought and I don't think the problem is that the article is too long or covering too much. I think the problem is that we're taking too long to get to the actual point of what we're trying to say. I've said it before (many times), but the article is basically incomprehensible to someone that doesn't already know everything about Gamergate. There are a couple of areas where we mention a person before we get to the section on why they're relevant (Milo Yiannopoulos receiving a syringe is mentioned 4 sections before his role in the controversy is described), or we split up related events (Operation Disrespectful Nod section describes it as a reaction to the end of the gamer identity articles but isn't discussed alongside the gamer identity section, basically everything in the industry response section, 90% of the Operation Baby Seal section is Operation Disrespectful Nod related). In the Gamer Identity section, we spend 2 paragraphs giving background information before we really explain how it relates to Gamergate at all. It's not really an easy fix situation either, where we can just move a few sentences around in the current structure.

I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that this article is doing a really bad job of getting to the point, and we can't keep making excuses to push off conversation about it. Kaciemonster (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

SVU Episode

Regarding this bit "though commentators also noted the episode exaggerated events beyond what has actually happened within Gamergate.". I think this is referring to the kidnapping that's in the show? I appreciate that nothing like that has thankfully happened in real-life, but if we're going to note that we need to be more specific, and I don't see anything in the sources that directly support this assertion. — Strongjam (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It was my initial impression I got, but that was my first reading, I'm fine with taking that out. I don't want to be having a review of the episode here, only at least establish that it was seen as a take on GG, albeit clumsy in its handling of gaming and online technology. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As a note, coming from doing a lot of work on plot and primary sourcing, we (WP that is) cannot infer that the episode was related to GG just from the primary source (which otherwise did not mention the term at all); we need to attribute that statement to commentators that it was to avoid the original research. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, was going to self-revert, but see you've fixed it. — Strongjam (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries; and to be clear if the producers come out and say "Yes, this was based on GG", we can nix that clarification. but so far, I've not seen anything. (I'd also like to try to get a non-tech/gaming source to add to that but ArsTech & the Verge are sufficiently distanced from core gaming sites for that opinion). --MASEM (t) 17:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

In a perfect world we could say it's was a sensationalized take on the controversy, but I don't think the sources come right out and say that. — Strongjam (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, yes, this is Kain, but he is quoting Quinn [9] noting how bad the end of the episode was (the female harassed decided to leave the industry instead of fight), which has been a point the other sources have picked up, in addition to the fumbling around with gamer and technology jargon. I don't have time to check immediately but if other sources repeat what Quinn (or Sarkeesian or Wu) have said about the ending being insulting, that should be included here. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

CORRECTION REQUESTED PLEASE-the episode aired on February 11, 2015. I don't want to start any trouble here but I also noticed-(in the SVU episode), that they used the tern, "Social Justice Warrior"/"SJW" more than once, that cinched it for me that it had ties to GG. A ref. from forbes.com:http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/02/12/law-order-svu-takes-on-gamergate-cant-press-reset-button/ TeeVeeed (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Masem linked to that ref already. It's not a Forbes article, rather a contributor blog from a writer we rely too heavily on already for a WP:NEWSBLOG. I'd rather avoid it if we can unless it gives us something essential. — Strongjam (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

SJW has been used prior to GG, GG may have made it more mainstream, but again, my point above - it is still OR to directly say that it was about GG just because things mirrored if if the term GG wasn't named on the show; however, with the use of secondary sources (included already) that say this, we avoid the OR claim. And I do agree I'd rather use another source than Kain's piece to make the statement on how Quinn felt about the episode in particularly the ending (quoting her twitter directly isn't great) but so far the only other source that seems to quote that is Jezebel and that's not great either. If push comes to shove and these are the only sources that use it, I don't see a problem using Kain as long as we limit it to affirming that this is what Quinn said. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed here, not completely opposed, just rather something else first. Also, we need a source for the amalgamation bit in the current paragraph, I'm not seeing it in the current sources. — Strongjam (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

TY for fixing that!Strongjam and the explanation about that source. I'm a pretty big Law and Order watcher and I was a little surprized about this one too since the Law & Order slogan is "Ripped from the Headlines", and generally they mean newspaper headlines which didn't give GG enormous newspaper coverage-(afaik-but if you're working on this article you probably have a few)......I also do not know if Law & Order ever directly confirms what stories they are highlighting, and they are known for mixing-it-up, or twisting a few different current-events together , adding a rape or assault, and they definitely do not mimic story details or names. TeeVeeed (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that I removed the part about an "amalgamation" of Sarkeesian and Quinn. I checked the sources and neither mentioned Quinn when talking about the main character. Both did say she resembled Sarkeesian though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wu directly writes about the episode in Bustle: [10]. Note she calls out the female character as an amalgamation of her, Quinn, and Sarkeesian. Also note: there's more than enough already that the episode itself is notable for its own page, though I don't know if we need it ; what we talk about the episode here should be as it reflects on GG, while if the episode page was made, it can encompasses all that. (Note, for example, the part about the Sony hack is not appropriate here, but good at the episode page, should that be made). --MASEM (t) 04:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Glad there's at least a reason behind that wording, but two secondary sources against a primary sources about written by the subject... call me leery... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Omission of a statement isn't the same as denial or negation of a statement. And in this case, I would put the primary source as the authoritative expert (lacking the writers' or producers' comments) if the character was an amalgamation of themselves than a secondary source, attributed to Wu of course. But now I know that all three have commented in a negative manner on the episode, just not all through good sourcing routes. --MASEM (t) 04:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not sure we need to mention this in the article at all. Yes, it feels like a big deal now (mostly because it's the biggest news the controversy has gotten in months), but in the long term? It doesn't add anything, it seems extremely unlikely to have any significant results, and it will mostly just vanish like all their other ripped-from-the-headlines articles. In general, "in popular culture" sections are a bad idea, and I don't think this is any different. If it were somehow happening near the beginning of the controversy (and therefore was part of what brought it to popular attention), sure, it'd make sense to have it here, but now? They do an episode like this for anything that got big headlines; we wouldn't cover the Law and Order episode for most of those (or if we did, it'd eventually get pulled later when someone cleaned up the popular-culture section.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamer identity: 'Within a day'

Hi! I'm removing the reinsertion of 'within a day' from the third paragraph under the Gamer Identity heading in Social and Cultural Implications. I sincerely do not understand why it's important that the article include this, given both the fact that we already have 'shortly following', making the phrasing 'within a day' is redundant, and that this phrasing is not used or noted as important by our sources. If you'd like to reinsert it, please explain here why it's important. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you as well, and have reverted once, PeterTheFourth. There is no need to discuss this factoid, unless reliable, independent sources discuss it in enough detail to justify its inclusion under due weight. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I've re-added it, happy to explain. Its relevance is to this sentence later in the paragraph: Gamergate supporters saw these op-eds as a conspiracy to stifle their criticism of the press with a smear campaign... Gamergate supporters view their simultaneous publication as evidence of a coordinated effort or "conspiracy" as we call it. Cullen328, regarding your comment on an RS for publication dates, the articles themselves are the source; see publication dates. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason 'within a day' is necessary where 'shortly following' does not suffice, Bob? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Other than precision (which is always good), the more synchronous the timing the more clearly the reader understands GG's motivations for believing the effort was coordinated. If the articles were published all within a minute, certainly you'd agree that's relevant to our later claim that GG viewed this as a coordinated effort; within the same week, maybe not -- rather than interpret that ourselves, it's better to present the facts as accurately as possible and allow the reader to interpret them. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing the specific need for this (redundant) phrasing. Is it an important point in the sources we're using? Do the sources we cite for GG's motivation in believing this was a conspiracy cite that they were created 'within days' as a reason for their paranoia? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

No reliable source has commented that said publications were "within a day." In addition, EB's list of sources are not anywhere "nearly a dozen," nor are they all "op-eds," as two are merely personal blogs. Hipocrite (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Peter: your initial concern seemed to be that timing of publication wasn't relevant. If I haven't sufficiently addressed that concern, let's continue discussion. Hipocrite, the source that describes the timing (Auerbach) uses "concurrently" to describe their publication, which I wouldn't object to. I have no opinion on the number (or category) of these publications other than that they should reflect reliable sources. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

No, my concern was that the phrasing was A) awkward and redundant B) not important enough (aka our sources do not emphasise it) to cite specific time periods on. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This phrase has been in the article since the last draft merge. We should be reverting to restore the phrase as it was then before its recent removal. PeterTheFourth seems to be confused on the wording - "within a day" has absolutely nothing to do with "shortly following the initial accusations towards Quinn". Perhaps it is the phrasing. As for the sources -> I’m not above critiquing my readers. I think they deserve critique just as harshly as the press and the industry itself. But it is odd when you see nearly a dozen articles within a 24 hour period pop up declaring the annihilation of an identity. It reeks of the worst sort of identity politics. source 1 but the gaming journalists unwisely decided to respond to the growing, nebulous anger by declaring that “gamers” were dead. Such articles appeared concurrently in Gamasutra ... source 2 EncyclopediaBob - there's no need to look at the publication dates - source 1 is clear. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I do think it is notable that so many blog articles that were basically on the same subject and were opinion pieces were printed over such a short period of time. But not all of those articles focusing on "gamers are over" were published within a day of each other. Many were published on the same day but all of them were published over a period of days. But I think if we are going to use "within a day", we can only cite the number of blog articles that were published on that day (or a 24 hour period). If we are going to include all blog articles on this subject, the wording has to be more vague like, "shortly following" or "over the next week" or something like that.

But I do think the timing of this is a significant aspect to the controversy. According to pro-GamerGate sources I've read, these opinion pieces being published so closely together was more significant in mobilizing gamers than the Zoe blog post. I'm sure I could find a source for that claim but it would likely be a SPS like a blog post. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I dont see it as notable or unusual. Blogs are an infectious herd animal and its hard to find an example of any story that doesnt appear in dozens of blogs within very short time periods. Someone latched on to the survey putting adult women at near parity in numbers of gaming and the concept spread like ebola.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Liz - the number of articles published within that span of a day was "nearly a dozen". It is not nearly a dozen over a week. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The key about the timing of "Death of gamers" from the standpoint of the overall situation is that it inflamed the GG movement crowd to start doing these targetted advertising denial campaigns. They might have been fueled on a belief that there was a conspiracy behind these articles all being posted at the same time, but even ignoring that (which we can't readily source) we can say that the amount of the dislike the gamer identity got in a brief period of time was what triggered them to start to find a way to fight back, hence operation Disresepctful Nod, for example. Hence noting the period as tied to the movement's actions is important. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel we have to be careful about relying on characterizations of why things happened; almost everyone involved has a different explanation for why everyone is saying or doing this or that, so we have to rely on our sources to inform the timeline or to dissect what the impetus for various aspects of the controversy were. Beyond that, it's also important to be extremely careful about how we describe or characterize the various op-eds. Lumping some of them together based on when they were published and saying that they were all making the same argument, say, is something we could attribute to the characterization or a particular source, but I don't feel we can do it in the article text unless we can find a decent number of reliable news sources (rather than opinion ones) using that description. And most news sources have described the articles as being primarily about opposing misogyny and harassment (as part of a larger reaction to and coverage of Gamergate's initial attacks) -- as far as I can tell, we only have Kain and Auerbach's opinion pieces dissenting, and their opinions are already given way more weight than they deserve throughout the article. --Aquillion (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Liz sums it up nicely. Regarding Aquillon's comment on undue weight, WP:UNDUE applies to viewpoints, not objective (and entirely uncontroversial) facts like publication dates. Giving it one word ("concurrently") or at most 3 ("24 hour period") seems entirely "in proportion to their representation in reliable sources." —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not a problem with the truth of the assertion- it's an issue with whether or not it adds to the article in a way that 'shortly following' does not. All proposed changes have been incredibly awkward and would be an issue readability-wise for our readers. Adding it adjacently to 'shortly following' is, as stated before, unnecessary. My suggestion to you: Come up with a way to add this information you feel is important in a sentence, something like 'Erik Kain, writing for Forbes, believes that the short, 24 hour time span within which these op-eds were published is one of the reasons why a very small minority of gamers believe the world is ending.' PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Once we've settled how to characterize them (they're not all op-eds) and the specific number (to Liz's point I suggest limiting the scope to those published within the 24 hour period) I'd replace the current text: Gamergate supporters saw these op-eds as a conspiracy to stifle their criticism of the press with a smear campaign with the following: Gamergate supporters saw the timing of these publications, all within a 24 hour period, as evidence of a coordinated effort by the press to deflect criticism. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd replace "a 24 hour period" with "a couple of days", as to reflect that what exactly the "death of gamers" article set was is unclear but establishes there was a very short time they all appeared. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Masem: We can source nearly a dozen articles within a 24 hour period pop up but what mentions "a couple of days"? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

How reliable are the claims of harassment?

Absent some FBI report or some such proof, it's wrong for us to state that #gamergate supporters harassed this woman as described in the article. It is wrong for us to repeat her claim that #gamergate supporters harassed her in these ways, let alone that they did so because of the motivations ascribed to them by her, without some proof from a police investigation or other informed expert opinion demonstrating that #gamergate supporters did indeed harass this woman, or that they don't want women involved in video games. Reason and evidence dictate that the harassment could have come from third parties, [BLP REDACT], or other possibilities. Yet the overall effect on a naive reader of this article as written at last edit is to come away with the impression that #gamergate supporters for sure harass this woman, but this has not been proven. This is not acceptable because mere allegations by partisans of one party to a dispute cast by another party to the dispute, and motivations ascribed to the other party to this dispute, these things should not be expressed as proven reasonably enough to be in an encyclopedia article, without reference to conclusions of investigation by informed disinterested experts. Chrisrus (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why reliable sources saying that gamergate supporters harassed someone is not sufficiently reliable to include? Hipocrite (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The question is whether the evidence supports the claims by the sources. For example, the claims made by the Guardian about the ArbCom ruling were reliable sourced, but not accurate, so we opted not to use them. This is a valid question that I know has been raised a few times, but has been attacked by others as a BLP violation for even being raised. Maybe we can actually have a discussion as to how to properly attribute the claims? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"The experience of Anita Sarkeesian is not just an isolated incident of an attempt to harass a woman out of participation in gaming culture. Over the months of August and September in 2014, an independent game developer by the name of Zoe Quinn and her friends have found themselves the target of an equally misogynist backlash by a coordinated conspiracy. While originally labelled under the hashtag ‘#quinnspiracy’, it evolved into a collective movement known as ‘gamergate’." — Heron, Michael James; Belford, Pauline; Goker, Ayse (2014). "Sexism in the circuitry". ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society. 44 (4). Association for Computing Machinery: 18–29. doi:10.1145/2695577.2695582. ISSN 0095-2737.

The paper also goes through some chat logs and analysis of the harassment. There is no reasonable debate among reliable sources about whether some GG supporters have harassed people. — Strongjam (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not, of course, what's being questioned. There's little question that there was harassment in some form, the question is about other forms: the claims about police filings and FBI investigations and so on. That is not as "well settled" as some want it to be, and, having been dealing with this page for a while, the "settlement" far too often was "shut up, we're just going with it." There's a reason topic bans were levied. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else you're looking for. Reliable sources have reported that the police and FBI are involved, and that's good enough for us. Not just good enough, really, but the absolute best we can ask for. We don't do our own original research and any official documents would be primary sources, so there's literally nothing more we can do except to wait for (a) more reliable sources about the reports, or (b) reliable sources about convictions. Woodroar (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I will let Chris explain exactly what he's looking for, but no, simply reporting things is not "good enough for us." At worst, we need to be more careful about how we're attributing many of these claims, especially controversial ones. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That was indeed what was being questioned "the overall effect on a naive reader of this article as written at last edit is to come away with the impression that #gamergate supporters for sure harass this woman". Which absolutely should be what readers come away with, since it's supported by a wealth of sources. — Strongjam (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue is one of attribution. There is definitely an issue with the article when it makes the decision that the impression is so, as opposed to attributing that impression to the relevant parties. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

IMO it depends on exactly what you're questioning with regards to harassment. If you're claiming that all the harassment is made up by the victims and none of it has happened, that is very clearly a BLP violation as you're accusing someone of malicious "professional victim"ing without any reliably sourced evidence. If you're questioning whether Gamergate are the ones who are carrying out the harassment, I cant see how that could possibly be construed as a BLP violation. But on that topic, the article never explicitly says[i think] that "gamergate supporters" (a loose and baggy term that could mean practically anything), are the ones responsible for harassment. Just that harassment has been done through the Gamergate hashtag (it has, see Brandwatch survey), and on sites like 8chan (it has, see doxing of Brianna Wu). I dont see the problem here, unless someone can point me to a specific example I've missed.Bosstopher (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming that "all the harassment is made up." The question is about attribution and confirmation, it appears, and is a valid one. If that is Chrisrus's angle, I don't support it, but there is a broader question that we should be looking at now that things have flared down a bit. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That was part of Chrisrus' angle but I redacted it. The third party trolls issue is definitely one worth discussing though.Bosstopher (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely no question. We have extensive reports in newspapers, including specific reports of police filings (Wu, Quinn, Harper) and police statements (Sarkeesian). A We have a report in the New Yorker, whose fact checking has long been legendary. We have academic papers published by professional societies. (Redacted) The repeated insinuation that widely-reported harassment did not occur or was faked are a BLP violation, This thread should be hatted at once or deleted; this has been discussed (too often) and settled (too many times) already. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop talking about each other, if it continues you may be subject to sanctions. Dreadstar ☥ 21:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mark, this sort of vitriol is not helpful. Please stop assuming the worst of editors you disagree with. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Thagor, I'd appreciate it if you stopped trying to bait somebody into getting angry with you. Your post is nothing but a misrepresentation of what he's saying, and is in very bad faith. In response to the question of how reliable the claims are- incredibly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC) No one is trying to bait anyone. If you think such comments are helpful, that's a problem. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Same user has pushed same POV repeatedly (both here and in Sarkeesians article). You need only check their edit history on this page to see the same pattern of behaviour (particularly the appeal to the FBI as the only arbiter of harassment / threats). No assumption required on Marks part fwiw. Koncorde (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thankfully the discussion is mostly focusing on whether perpetrators of harassment were mostly third party trolls or gamergate supporters. I've redacted the only (two word) accusation of harassment being faked, and the rest of the discussion is moving along much more productive lines. I see no reason to hat. Bosstopher (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate is the harassment. Period. When you havethere is nothing but a hashtag for your a "movement", yourthe "movement" consists of everything done under the hashtag. If whats done under the hastag is harassment, thats what the "movement" is. If youpeople want not to be associated with harassment, then youthey need organization, non-anonymous official spokes people, an actual agenda of concerns etc. Outside of the harassment it is non notable. Unless youanyone have specific sources to discuss, this is just more meaningless, unproductive bluster.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to make sure: by "you," you mean hashtag movements, and not me right? I dont really have any source issues on this topic I feel like bringing up, and think the article as it stands gives the harassment aspect a fair enough shake. My comment was more defending the idea of this section not being hatted, because I think this discussion could be fruitful if more specific talking points and sources are brought up. Bosstopher (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The simple answer is that the article goes by what we can find in reliable sources. The article as it is now has, overall, very good sourcing, relying on multiple high-quality independent sources for the most important or controversial aspects. If you disagree with the conclusions those sources draw, you need to find other sources to back that up; just using your own logic about how they might be wrong or biased or so forth is WP:OR and can't really be used to build the article. --Aquillion (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any suggested edits or possible sources here, just a lot of SOAPBOXing about why the RSes shouldn't be believed with respect to Gamergate's status as a harassment campaign. The editor also didn't bother to specify who "this woman" refers to, which is darkly amusing. drseudo (t) 20:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the use of "this woman" bothered me, too. I assume it was used to avoid a BLP violation that would occur if the subject were named.

What I hear people asking for is an investigation into the investigation done by the reliable sources used in this article. But, as Aquillion notes, this would be original research, even when governed by "reason" and "logic" which I see constantly appealed to and which seem to actually mean "common sense according to me." Just stating that ones opinion was derived by reason and through logic doesn't make it so or make that opinion relevant to editing this article. This comment isn't directed to any editor in particular, I just these two words thrown around a lot with the implication that if you disagree, you are unreasonable and illogical. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I vaguely recall the wizardchan/8chan guy attributing harassment to real people through IPs as an admin of those boards. That was reported in sources, though I don't recall which ones. I'd prefer names and dates as opposed to invisible bogeyman blame. None of those named as GG supporters have been called harassers yet all of GG is named as harassers. It's a non-sequitur at best and BLP violation of association at worst. --DHeyward (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no question that there was harassment; it's been reported by numerous sources, many cited in the article. There is no question that the harassers claimed to be associated in some way with #GamerGate; it's been reported by numerous sources, many cited in the article. There is no question that police reports have been filed and restraining orders obtained; this, too, has been widely reported. There is not question of a BLP violation of an anonymous harasser, because the anonymous harasser by definition has no biography. There is no question here. No one is blaming a bogeyman for anything; reliable sources from The New Yorker to The Guardian, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and many more agree that individuals were harassed by people claiming to support #GamerGate. There is nothing to discuss: this has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Mark, as you can see, there are clear disagreements about your assertions here. Furthermore, proper attribution improves the encyclopedia. Discussion about articles and how to handle sensitive topics improves the encyclopedia. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

While there are "disagreements" they are based on personal opinion with no supporting sources- which makes them just basic civil disruption. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

I wrote the above post this morning, and returning to it now and having just read the responses, if I may under the circumstances just start at the left margin again, to sort of indicate a reply to all of the above, by revising my earlier statement taking the above replies into account, below.

If a source includes reasonably substantive evidence, such as, for example, the conclusions of independent, disinterested expert authorities, such as the FBI, that some specific instance of harassment actually happened, that it was indeed harassment and not legitimate criticism, that the harassment clearly did come from #gamergate supporters, and that the harassment was done for the motivations as ascribed to the harasser by the harassee, then by all means when we pass those accusations along in this article we can phrase it in such a way that implies we are vouching for the validity; simple declarative sentences that are read to mean "this actually happened".

If a source merely repeats allegations of harassment made by parties to the dispute, with no sign of skeptical investigation or findings or proof by someone qualified to say so, or if a source merely repeats sources that simply repeats accusations from a party to the dispute, we cannot rightly pass them along without clear indication that these are someone's allegations, we don't write this article in such a way that implies these things have been proven. It's wrong to pass along one side's accusations without due diligence on our part to carefully check each source to see whether the allegations within are merely repeated or whether there is reasonable evidence in the sources. Chrisrus (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, this is, in fact, an issue of attribution, then? If so, can you give an example from the article as to what you're talking about and how you'd opt to reword it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This fascinating proposal replaces WP:RS and WP:OR with a new policy that would require Wikipedia "carefully to check each source to see ....whether there is reasonable evidence". As I understand things, Talk pages are not the appropriate forum for radical revisions to policy; I believe that’s WP:Village_Pump? Until policy changes, when reliable sources like the Boston Globe report these events, Wikipedia follows them. If the Boston Globe were to write tomorrow that no GamerGate supporters were involved with the harassment they previously reported, we'd follow that -- weighing it, of course, against contrary views in conformity with WP:DUE. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Without any sources to support any of these wild assertion, we are done and further beating this dead horse is the poster child for disruption. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That policy that allows us to do that is NPOV: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." As such, the lack of any clear evidence or legal rulings on the matter put everything the press says as a claim - the predominate claim that must be represented as the predominate one - but not as fact. (Note: I no question the harassment occurred - we have statements from police involved stating they are looking into it. There's other factors, however, the above NPOV policy applies to). --MASEM (t) 00:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Well then we are REALLY done, because there is NOT ANY let alone "serious" contestation of the facts. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes there is. First , the people at the center have expressed doubt; the press, as semi-involved (as this is an attack on journalism) are not 100% independent here so we have to consider their word with some question (per the RFC earlier), and that there are reliable sources that put doubt onto some of the claims (like GG being a harassment movement than about ethics). We simply don't say what the press claims as facts, but as claims of the press. As soon as there's evidence to remove all doubt from the situation, then we can make it factual. --MASEM (t) 00:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

the semi involved press?? give it a break. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the press is involved enough to question their bias - not to deny they are RSes or the weight of their views, but the fact that they have not explained the reasoning for their claims is a strong sign of bias and why we should report their statements as clains, not facts. The Guardian article about the ArbCom decision is a perfect example of what we have to watch for here. --MASEM (t) 05:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No. No it is not. Please read the findings of the ArbCom particularly 5) and 12) and notice there there is not any finding 15) declaring a massive conspiracy involving the media. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Where did I say anything about conspiracy? It's simply understanding that because GG's arguments are about journalism, news sources are not 100% independent of this subject and we have to consider the bias they carry. CRJ's report on GG points out that the journalism on the situation is difficult because of lack of information, that's what we should be considering here in the accuracy of reporting. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The core of your point is that there are 'seriously contested assertions' we're stating as fact in the article that we shouldn't be. What are these assertions, and who is seriously contesting them (is it you)? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

To start: The lede "These attacks, initially performed under the Twitter hashtag #gamergate, were later variously coordinated in the online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in an anonymous and amorphous movement." That's not how the movement or some sources talking about the movement view it - that's how the press believes it is. That needs to be a claim, not a fact. --MASEM (t) 00:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Err... are you contesting that attacks were performed under the hashtag, that they were coordinated on online forums, or that gamergate is anonymous and amorphous? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't even pretend to know what Masem contests, but personally I contest the notion that they were coordinated. At least some attacks were verified to be using the hashtag (although it was never completely verified whether the offenders were GamerGate-supporters, third party trolls using the tag or 'anti-GG' using an nasty move - and I doubt after all this time I can be verified unless the FBI-investigation reveals something), and the movement is certain to be anonymous and amorphous (spelling?) MicBenSte (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That they were coordinated by the group that considers itself the movement. That there was harassment under #GG, yes, That there was some coordination on forums, yes; but the movement's connection to being involved in the coordinated harassment is tenuous, particularly if the group denies that it is doing it and that sources support the idea that there are some in the GG movement that are anti-harassment. The GG movement could be lying, but we don't have evidence to prove that is the case. As an objective source, we should consider that claim contentious and simply make sure it is presented as a claim. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

We can't go against our reliable sources just because the movement the reliable sources discuss doesn't like how it's portrayed. I'm sorry. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not going against the reliable sources; restating what an RS believes is fact but is really a contentious statement and stating that as a claim is not going against the RSes. That's exactly what that line in NPOV I quote is all about. It would be going against the RS to say that they are flatly wrong, or stating what GG claims they are is fact. They are both claims on both sides as the truth is very much unknown. --MASEM (t) 05:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

'is really a contentious statement' according to some person on the internet. As mentioned by other editors- the earth being a sphere is also a 'contentious statement' according to the other 'side'. Our reliable sources overwhelmingly report the fact of the harassment being co-ordinated by gamergate types, and thus, that is what we have in our article. Going against this is not 'upholding NPOV', it is violating it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

They claim this, they have not demonstrated any evidence to clearly state it as fact that we, as an objective, impartial work, can use. That's the whole point of that NPOV phrase that there is no violation of sourcing to simply make what is stated as claims and avoid implying anything stronger by stating it as fact. You can't just repeatedly say "the RS say so, so it must be fact". Our policies do not support this POV - we are about verifyability and not truth, and as such all policies state to take the more conservative few and avoid stating any statement of contention as fact. Additionally, since this is a controversy, that means that statements on all sides are contentious to those on the other sides, and as such, we should treat them as claims. NPOV is very clear on this. --MASEM (t) 07:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggest you re-read WP:V. It does not require our sources to show their work. If you have reliable sources that show these claims contentious then bring them. Otherwise we will continue to apply WP:ASSERT for statements of fact. — Strongjam (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:V does not require us to be mindless automatons either. We do not need reliable sources to show that a claim is contentious during the discussion of whether/how to use a source, just in the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The flat-earth analogy only applies if you ignore the distinction between fact and opinion. If scientists merely claimed the earth were round without offering significant proof: pictures from space, the disappearance of ships' masts over the horizon, escape trajectory, etc. we'd be right to consider the spherical earth an opinion and state it as opinion. Conversely, if RSs offered significant proof of Gamergate's harassment, we'd be right to state the harassment as fact. Neither is the case. Here's a better analogy: "George W. Bush was a bad president." We find majority support for that in RSs but Wikipedia would never state it as fact. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"George W. Bush was a bad president." is an opinion. "Gamergate supporters have harassed Zoe Quinn." is a statement of fact well supported by a variety of RS and there is no serious contention that it is not fact. — Strongjam (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

And if I argued "Gamergate supporters have harassed Zoe Quinn" is a statement of opinion, how would you refute that? On what bases do you distinguish fact from opinion? —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Then you would be wrong. It is a statement that something occurred or is actually the case. It is not a subjective statement. — Strongjam (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it is subjective because the definition of what is a "Gamergate supporter" is subjective. To some, they are those that want to discuss issues of ethics in journalism; to others, it is anyone using the hashtag #gamergate. As such, the statement is subjective. Objectively, it is true that Quinn and others were harassed by people using the #gg hashtag, but not necessary the same as the gamergate movement. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No true gamergate supporter? No, I'm sorry, but it's a true statement well supported by sources, not a subjective statement. — Strongjam (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No, not supported at all by sources. It is claimed by sources, but they do not explain in any manner how they got to that conclusion, and is counter to what other just-as-reliable sources claim. As such, the statement is contentious and should be reported as a claim, not fact. The logic "reliable sources must be right because they are reliable sources" is not what policy says (reliable sources are verifyable but they are not necessarily right), and certainly we as tertiary editors can apply the appropriate caution as outlined in NPOV policy. --MASEM (t) 17:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This same exact conversation happens about once a week. It's time that we start recognizing it for what it is: a dead end. Kaciemonster (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The reason this keeps coming up is because at the core of every issue raised, for the most part, is a lack of objectivity by both those pushing the GG agenda, and by those that are trying to condemn and attack the group using the predominate press view as a tool for that. WP is 100% neutral and objective, meaning we cannot judge which side is right or wrong when there is far too little evidence, expert analysis, or legal evaluation to do that, and should be treating most of the details beyond the actual events and harassment (which can be clearly verified) as claims attributed, and not as fact. In that regard, as a tertiary source, as outlined by NPOV, we can make judgement calls to treat purported facts as opinions if they seem to be contentious claims. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

We keep Wikipedia 100% neutral and objective by following the reporting of the reliable sources, which is the exact opposite of what you keep suggesting. Also, I wasn't asking why this keeps coming up, I was suggesting that we've been through this conversation multiple times already with no changes coming out of it. Do you plan on arguing this once a week until you get the response you're looking for? Kaciemonster (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"they do not explain in any manner how they got to that conclusion". WP:V does not require our sources to explain how they arrived at their conclusions. "is counter to what other just-as-reliable sources claim" Which sources in particular are that? What are you basing this claim that this is a contentious assertion? — Strongjam (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

But NPOV allows us to evaluate claims made by RSes to judge if they are fact or opinion, particularly for contentious issues. As I've pointed before, we have Salon's articles, some from the The Verge, and other sources that acknowledge that there is at least a subset of the movement fighting against harassment, so no, we cannot say, factually, the entire movement is responsible for harassment. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Not really addressing what I asked, but "we cannot say, factually, the entire movement is responsible for harassment." Nobody is saying that. What is being said is that Gamergate supporters have harassed people. There is no reasonable debate about that in RS. — Strongjam (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

These attacks, initially performed under the Twitter hashtag #gamergate, were later variously coordinated in the online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in an anonymous and amorphous movement. from our lead is saying that. And this again comes to what is the definition of what a "GG Supporter" is - some would claim it is anyone that uses the hashtag, others would claim it is those that support a discussion of ethics in gaming. The nebulous nature of what GG is and that it remains poorly defined (not only by those in the movement but by the press as well) means we need to be very careful to stay objective on what is fact and claim to avoid incriminating people that have done nothing wrong (beyond perhaps havind odd and skewed sense of moral values). --MASEM (t) 18:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That does not say all GG supporters harassed people. In context it's saying that the controversy gained significant attention because of the attacks under the GG banner, and those attacks were coordinated on online forums.. — Strongjam (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

The proposals discussed above move from remarkable to astonishing and now arrive at a pinnacle of whimsical delight. Are we now seriously proposing that NPOV should permit editors to disregard the consensus of reliable sources because those sources are involved? This directly contradicts WP:RS and renders WP:OR a dead letter. It guts WP:FRINGE utterly: every fringe belief is convinced that the established sources are biased against it. Or is this exemption only to apply to GamerGate? How are editors to know that GamerGate is exempt from WP:RS, but Scientology, Creation Science, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are not? Can any editor declare the reliable sources are all biased and require special scrutiny, or is this privilege reserved for special editors? In that case, how are newcomers to know that the instruction to disregard WP:RS in the supposed interest of WP:NPOV comes from a special editor who can authorize this? Can any group apply for a GamerGate exemption to WP:RS -- and if so, to whom do they send they petition? This is not a contribution to the encyclopedia; this discussion should be closed and should not be revisited until the preponderant judgment of reliable sources has clearly changed. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If WP:CPUSH has any force at all, does it applies here? This argument appears to be taken almost verbatim from section 2.3.3 of WP:FLAT. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes we can evaluate sources in this manner as we are an objective tertiary source. We have to evaluate sources in the course of writing the encyclopedia for reliability at the whole encyclopedic level and article level, and evaluate specific articles from sources in application to the article. This is very much a requirement that we consider in determining what are RS, who are reliable authors, and where the line between fact and contentious claim is drawn. As a neutral, objective work, we take the conservative line and any contentious statement that lacks clear evidence of being true and repeat it as a claim - it doesn't contradict the source, simply putting a claim with proper attribution out of WP's voice. And this process is one of consensus and past policy developed by consensus - we're not t editor but we have to go with consensus and established policy. The issue is not one of balance (which everyone has come to agree that we're never even going to have something like 50-50 here) but impartiality and objectivity. We simply cannot assume that the press is "right" when they have made claims without any backing evidence and others argue against those point. This is why we've pointed out that we don't flat out call Westboro a hate group, or Scientology a fake religion in WP's voice, despite the predominance of sources that present this view, as there is no evidence these are true. Same with many claims specificly directly at the GG movement. --MASEM (t) 05:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

We evaluate sources for their reliability because we trust them to engage in the sort of fact checking and editorial control that we require. We don;t necessarily need them to provide additional information if we can safely assume that they would have undergone whatever level of fact checking would be expected for the particular claim. We generally trust NYT not because they publish all of the proof for each claim, but that we expect a publication of that calibre to have processes in place to ensure their accuracy, even if they don't show us. Similarly, we regard academic journals as reliable because of the peer review process and issues around the reputation and standing of the authors and publications. Given that confirmation in this case would simply involve reading IRC logs, visiting 8chan and 4chan, and checking out Reddit, I'm not convinced that they need to outline all of their proof in their articles if it can be reasonably assumed that a suitably reliable source would have ensured that it was accurate. - Bilby (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's the "reasonably assumed" that's the problem. One side of this is "reasonably assuming" that the reporting is correct. Attribution is key here because there's a lot of questions involved in this reporting that aren't being seriously addressed. This is a very controversial topic, so the opposition to proper attribution is especially baffling. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not really particularly controversial. Russia invading Crimea is controversial. Morocco refusing to host the Cup of Nations is controversial. It's just a significant event on the internet with an inordinate amount of fluffy sources freely cross-posting through the mediums of social networking (one of which happens to be wikipedia). We do not assess if the "reporting is correct", we use wikipedias policy on reliable sources to reflect the consensus. Koncorde (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If I need to amend my statement to say that's it's controversial within it's fairly insular bubble of gaming culture, then do so. But yes, we do assess whether the reporting is accurate. We do it all the time. It's part and parcel of being an editor of an encyclopedia, by assessing sources for their reliability. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like Tomato / Tomato to me. The sources are reliable, ergo the content is valid. Whereas the "reporting is correct" is a value judgement. Even if I don't agree with what the article says - if it's from an RS then I cannot argue with its validity (only then its context and suitability for the article, BLP or whatever within wikipedias other criteria). It would be expected the reliable source, if incorrect, would issue a retraction or correction as per editorial oversight - which is largely what makes something reliable. The only time I would see evidence of "reporting is correct" being some kind of valid criteria is when dealing with twitter or blog material (which is where they should only be used for exceptionally fluffy stuff if at all). Koncorde (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It is expected, yes, but it doesn't always happen. We made the sort of "reporting is correct" criteria on numerous occasions, most notably here with the Guardian/ArbCom debacle (and we were correct there). We're doing it with the Cathy Young material (and shouldn't be). "It's a reliable source" is never enough justification. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Same issue - Tomato / Tomato. A - depends on what you were using the Guardian piece for. B - depends on what you are using the Cathy Young pieces for. It's not a case of wrong or right, or "reporting is correct" as a value judgement. I consider the Guardian Arbcom to be a reliable source and see no issue with its use (not that I think it has any relevance here to be honest), but we have policies that deal with wikipedia becoming the subject of any discussion. Koncorde (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian Arbcom article is a good example of what an RS does. They printed a correction. — Strongjam (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That was my thought also, but I never read the original or the context of how it was to be included in this article for me to constructively comment. Koncorde (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The IRC logs and visiting 8chan and 4chan and Reddit shows exactly how much doubt there is in the statement (or variations of it) "The gamergate movement is directly responsible for the harassment", which is the most significant problem with how the sources are framing this. There are a significant number of people on those forums that can be seen that are clearly part of the movement and want to discuss things about ethics, and clearly are against the use of harassment or similar attacks for intimidatation and even fight against; these people are even identified as the "GG Moderate" in some sources. This is not saying their arguments are right (much of what they say are conspiracy theory-level assumptions, or lack an understanding of how professional networking is important), nor is it saying that the movement has enabled the harassment via the overall attitude towards Quinn etc. and their unwilling to distance themselves from the term GG to avoid. But, to do what the RSes have done and what our article says as a fact, that the movement as a whole is doing the harassment, is a highly contentious statement when you consider all the sources, and exactly what you can see if you do your own legwork. That there likely individual members of the movement doing the harassment while at the same time supporting the movement, I'm sure there exist some, but that does not mean the movement's purpose is factually to engage in harassment; we also have sources that say there's a sign the harassment is being done by trolls with zero interest in GG but using the overall lack of confusion to make things a mess for all.

Note that this also stems from what the movement "is". The actual "movement" (if you go to the above sites) make it clear they consider the movement to be about ethics, etc. But there are some of our sources that claim the movement just anyone using the hashtag, which of course would include those doing the harassing. Yes, lots of blame on the overall confusion on the lack of organization at GG, no question on that, but still this begs membership of who is in the movement to a point that saying the movement as a whole is doing the harassment is an exaggeration.

So that's the core issue that I have here - we have statements in the WP article that assign the direct harassment to the movement because some sources say source, despite other sources - not as predominate - and actual investigation of the matter showing this to be far too broad a claim. It's not necessarily wrong, because perhaps behind all those forums, there's private mailing lists that are being used to engineer the front of anti-harassment while they harass otherwise. But it's also not necessarily right and there's sourceable claims from other good RSes to counter that point. It's also one step away from falling afoul of BLP, in that it is an accusation of criminal activity without evidence towards persons - just that BLP does not cover pseudo-anonymous groups, but the same principle should apply in that WP should not be making such accusations that are not legally justified. Simply restating this "fact" as a claim with attribution to coming from a predominate number of sources brings that part into compliance with NPOV. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That seems like the thin edge of a wedge Masem. If Gamergate is unable to tell us who its members are, and the reliable sources are unable to discern their members, and Gamergate is unable to disavow the harassment, then it's catch-22. We just go with the RS's and try not to make a travesty of an article. We can't protect the faceless and nameless using BLP standards if they're faceless and nameless (and that seems to me what is sometimes being pushed), just as we can't single out the individuals responsible for the harassment (or even wholly identify their ideology). Hooray for amorphous self subscribed organisations. The argument you're pushing is like a form of mass "no true Scotsman". Koncorde (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You're proving my point: who the membership of GG is is unknown and/or poorly defined due to several factors. As such, any statement that broadly statements the membership did X is contentious from the start due to that lack of knowledge. So we simply state that as a claim, not a fact as defined by NPOV. We should still include a statement like "most commentators believe that the movement is responsible for the harassment, and the ethics play is a front for this (add ref list here)", which gets across the predominate view, but we cannot say "the movement is responsible for the harassment" in WP's voice because of the uncertainity and contentiousness in that statement. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This is tiring. I don't think there is single source that says GG supporters haven't harassed Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu. We're not going to violate NPOV and try to introduce doubt or give the impression that there is any sort of debate about this. It is not contentious in the least. If you have sources to show that it is contentious perhaps bring those here. — Strongjam (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No, several sources like from Salon point out that the harassment may even be coming from outside the GG supporter group, in addition to what GG supporters say. It is a flat out contentious statement. If sources call a group a subjective label X and that group says they are not X, that's immediately contentious and we have to treat both sides as claims. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"This is why we've pointed out that we don't flat out call Westboro a hate group, or Scientology a fake religion in WP's voice, despite the predominance of sources that present this view, as there is no evidence these are true." Have you read the Scientology or Westboro article recently? Both of those things (somewhat verbosely in the case of the Scientology page) are quite clearly outlined by wikipedia, in wikipedias voice, by referring to reliable sources. I see no difference to this article. We're getting into unnecesarily complex and undue levels of "proof" being vetted by editors when we are simply reflecting the reliable sources. The only unreliability are the allegations from the conspiracy theorists. We do not allow the movements to dictate how we present 9/11 or similar "controversial" events - and nor should we here. Koncorde (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"The church is widely described as a hate group[4] and is monitored as such by the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center." Attribution to sources. Scientology's lead takes three paragraphs before noting that critics define it as a cult. Attribution, and the actual popular consensus viewpoint on Scientology is much, much more exact than this topic. If you're arguing that this article should be handled similarly to those two articles, I absolutely agree based on how they're currently written. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes and no, I would direct attention to my edits to the page when this article first started. Article should have been called "#Gamergate" so we could refer to the movement and content of claims with context (the same way we treat Wesboro and Scientology, i.e. we treat them as valid entities), and then had the same controversy / harassment discussions subsequent. Current page being called "Gamergate Controversy" is 90% of the problem as it means any attempt to represent the other side of any argument is built onto a pre-existing clause that this is about a controversy (it's a loaded statement). We do not refer to Westboro as the "Westboro Controversy". Koncorde (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm still surprised it's here and not at least at Gamergate movement. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate is a leaderless, largely unorganized campaign that isn't even a year old. It doesn't have official criteria for membership, issues no press releases and doesn't even have a website. It can't possibly be compared with organized churches like Westboro Baptist Church or the Church of Scientology.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Neither was Occupy Wall Street. But we talk about them as a movement regardless. It's completely possible do that here with all the sources we have (including the counterclaims that some don't consider it a movement due to lack of organization). --MASEM (t) 20:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Occupy had an identified mission and identified spokespeople. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I think there are identified people part of Gamergate aren't there? And Gamergate has tried to push a mission. That the majority is faceless and mission statement derided is not particularly important. I think it would be one of the simplest fixes of many POV complaints. Koncorde (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Seriously... It's a campaign against perceived problems with ethics in a specialized form of entertainment journalism. Do you have any idea how low that ranks as a social concern? If you compare that to a campaign aimed at income inequality, you've lost all sense of perspective. I'm not sure there would even have been a separate article about this if it wasn't for the harassment and sexism.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Question about statement in article

I was surprised to see this added in the Fine Young Capitalist section Early in the controversy, Gamergate supporters on 4chan, arguing that it would make them "look really good" and make them "PR-untouchable". When I checked the two sources, I couldn't find this statement supported. They look like direct quotes from a post on 4chan. Do these quotes come from a different article than the ones cited (an article by Kain and one on TFYC). Thanks Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

They're from the Vice source at the end of the next sentence. A little odd, since they're direct quotes, so maybe the source should be moved to the end of the first sentence? Woodroar (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no mention whatsoever in Kain's Forbes article and in the interview with TFYC. Also an quick Google search, including the TFYC blog, point also to /v/ as having initiated the fundraising, hence why /v/ did get the option to design an game avatar (which became Vivian James). There are mentions of /pol/ having also donated to the raise (something from what I recall is right), but this 'late on the party' insertion which also got immidiately used to override earlier sources, is strange to say the least. I'm not against making it an 'shared' /v/ - /pol/ quote, which would be near the truth, yet the quote originally used in the first line is an aberration. MicBenSte (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't checked out the Vice article, Woodroar, but they are remarkable quotes and if they come from the Vice article, it should be cited at that statement. It looks like this has been done. Aside from reliable sources debates, I'm always skeptical about quotes from online message boards or social media that seem to be taken at random. They can be useful to use as an example or if they are tied to a particular user under discussion but it can't be asserted that quotes like this reflect a majority opinion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that, if we're going to keep the quotes, the source should follow that sentence. I support keeping them, but I wouldn't be heartbroken if consensus goes the other way. I do feel that they were removed by User:MicBenSte for spurious reasons, however. In MicBenSte's edit summary and comments above, it appears that the quotes were removed because they don't appear in the Forbes article and TFYC interview, but that's irrelevant: three sources can support the same or different claims, and in this case the Vice source adequately supported the quotes. I almost missed that the quotes were removed, in fact, because I saw "Editing in Vice" in the edit summary and assumed that MicBenSte had simply moved the ref. I'm inclined to revert but this is as good a time as any to discuss whether we want those quotes there in the first place. Woodroar (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia article text was erroneous. The Vice article attributes the quotes to " /pol/, 4chan’s politics forum" and "One user" (from 4chan?). I missed this on the first read, but the source does say "Gamers on 4chan are pouring time and energy into backing a project that sponsors female-created video games" earlier in the article. Still, the source does not explictly say they are GamerGate supporters, only that they are 4chan gamers. In fact the Vice article never mentions GamerGate. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That article was published August 28; the Gamergate hashtag had only been tweeted for the first time the day before, so it hadn't yet been widely-adopted as the title for the controversy and couldn't have been used to describe it. The context, however, makes it clear that it's describing what would eventually be called Gamergate, and the later article on it (which I linked below) uses the term explicitly. The donation drive was obviously not initially organized under the #Gamergate hashtag or by self-described Gamergate supporters (because, again, the term didn't exist when it happened), but I think that the Vice article is sufficient to source the fact that a large part of the early organizing, at least for this drive, was on /pol/, not just /v/. --Aquillion (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• Here's another source (from Fastcompany) highlighting the ' "We’d be PR-untouchable" quote (and characterizing it as one of the "initial posts on 4chan organizing the drive.") It's tricky to trace a lot of what's going on with Gamergate because it's planned and organized on forums like this (which we can't cite directly), but we can definitely cover things from there that have been highlighted as relevant by multiple reputable publications like this. --Aquillion (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, how about we use Fastcodesign to attribute to GamerGate supporters. If you want to attribute it to /pol/ you can use Vice. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

My big issue is not whether in August the posters at 4chan /v/ board can be called GamerGaters (although that is debatable) but rather using these specific quotations which makes gamers participating in these charity efforts appear manipulative, cynical and self-serving. I think those quotes can be used if they are attributed to an individual but not "GamerGate supporters" as a group. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Protection needed

Can an admin please protect Draft:Gamergate controversy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit - changed opinion. No longer supporting, I failed to spot the 'Draft'-concept. Also, I'm in need of sleep but my body isn't cooperating... MicBenSte (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I was not a fan of the Draft that I saw a while ago but, TheRedPenOfDoom, was it really proper to delete the entire draft that editors had worked on? Has the material been moved anywhere else? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The history is still there, and always will be can't be deleted for attribution reasons. I don't think anyone was still working on it, but if so it's not hard to get it back. — Strongjam (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No one has seriously touched it in two weeks. Thats 3 generations of sock accounts. There is no serious discussions about that version or attempting any other major restructuring. At a bare minimum it needs to be semi-protected. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's essentially a sandbox. It doesn't need to be protected from anything except blatant BLP violations. Try focusing on more important things.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of Revert by Avono

Alex Lifschitz's twitter account is not verified and therefore not an acceptable source per WP:Twitter. I chose the wrong operation while trying to restore the wiki link to baphomet causing me to do the self-revert. Avono (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Good revert, I never noticed the account wasn't verified. Even if it was verified it would be undue weight for a self-published source in this article. — Strongjam (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Combining Nathaniel Givens and Carter Dotson (in Social and cultural implications)

Hello! It seems people are very eager to add any commentator who might speak in favour of things they like. I'm not sure we need to add entire sentences to the leading paragraphs of sections when these things are discovered. Instead, I'm going to try to find a way to generalise its contents and add it as a source to the Nathaniel sentence we had, given the similarity in what they're saying. Let me know what you think. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If anything, we don't give that perspective enough play. I don't agree with your change. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

We give perspectives play according to how many reliable sources portray them. The higher the quality and quantity of our reliable sources which write about something in a particular way, the more our article reflects this. They don't both need separate sentences in the lead paragraph of that section. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

And I disagree that they don't both need separate sentences. We should be working to balance out this article, not try and minimize one side of the discussion as has been going on for six months running. Improved attribution is one aspect, but accurately and fairly representing relevant points of view (as opposed to minimizing them) is another. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to recommend you read our policies on NPOV. We cannot portray minority views as 'equal' or 'as important as' non-minority views. That you're advocating we have two 'pro-gamergate' commentators each given separate sentences in this section-lead paragraph (which would only have four sentences in it) is surely something you realise as more than a bit silly? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm very familiar, thanks. I am not arguing that they should be portrayed as "equal" or "as important as." I don't believe it silly at all to include those perspectives there, as it's part of the wider discussion of that section (a section that also needs improvement). Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Those perspectives are included- I haven't removed anything, merely condensed two very similar articles into one generalised sentence. If you believe it should be placed elsewhere in that section, you're welcome to move it- we're the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and so on. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it was fine the way it was, and should probably be reverted. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

There's an issue, Thagor, with both claiming that you understand our policies on NPOV and that we should have two separate sentences dedicated to single articles from 'pro-gamergate' (a rather minority view) commentators in the section-lead paragraph. My suggestions are not automatic- I give them based on the level of knowledge the person I am talking to displays, and I had assumed you had not read these policies. If you have read these policies and truly want to change the article in that way, perhaps you should re-read them, as these policies make your suggested course of action untenable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a problem of weight in this article, and not just in this section. Minority points of view require proper weight, yes. They currently do not have enough weight as needed on a variety of levels to satisfy NPOV. This is not a pro/con issue, but one of writing a neutral and accurate encyclopedia. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If you truly believe the article is unbalanced, surely there are easier ways to fix that than to ceaselessly complain of me merging two near-identical opinions into one sentence. Given MarkBernstein's approval of my edit, and a review of it myself, I see no issue with it and as such (unless somebody else disagrees with it, in which case we can work towards a better solution) I'm going to go do something more productive than attempt to satisfy your complaints. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, we're working on it. Slowly and steadily. It would be great to get some help on it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

As both writers are making closely-related opinions, and as those opinions are clearly a minority view, summarizing them in one sentence seems quite reasonable and is considerate of the readers. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2015

Gamergate controversy → Gamergate movement – It's time to discuss this for real. As talk in the past and archives has shown, there is more play for "movement" than "controversy," and sources do not boil it down to a controvery, but a movement with substantially controversial elements. Because of the evidence and because of POV concerns, this should move to the correct movement page. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. If it wasn't for the harassment, sexism and other destructive behavior, mainstream media wouldn't have cared one bit about Gamergate. You seem to forget that ethics in a niche of entertainment journalism is a pretty insignificant issue in the grand scheme of things. Peter ^Isotalo 00:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think "movement" is the correct word, but I do think "controversy" is a loaded term and I would support movement to something neutral. I would point out that if not for the Ant of the same name, this would never have resided at Gamergate controversy in the first place. Koncorde (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I know of no RS that use the term movement. If you can provide RS calling this a movement and not a controversy, I would change my mind. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Just from the first page of Google News: [20] [21] [22] [23]. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Some sources do mention the "movement", but only when struggling to explain what Gamergate is and how everyone responsible is anonymous. The focus of reliable sources is the controversy itself, the events that happened and the persons involved. Woodroar (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. It can't reliably be called a movement if it has no organisation, established goals, or leader. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: the only clear evidence for the existence of the movement is its record of harassment. This has been discussed before at considerable length, and was rejected. "Controversy" is actually quite neutral. GamerGate is chiefly known for threatening women in the computer industry with assault, rape, and death, and so a case could be made for "Conspiracy." A case could be made as well that GamerGate exists only a a hashtag, so "GamerGate Hashtag" might make sense. A ‘movement"is typically "a group of people working together to advance shared political, social or artistic ideas," but always involves identifiable individuals: the American Labor Movement (Debs, Gompers, and followers) or the Civil Rights Movement (Medgar, Martin, and Malcolm), or the Beats Movement (Kerouac, Ginsburg, Burroughs). Offhand, I can't think of any precedent for a "movement" in which one cannot name a single adherent or representative, much less point to a charter or manifesto. The proposer may aspire to be part of a movement, or even to found one, but the sources report a campaign of harassment most charitably described as a Controversy, not anything like a movement. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)