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.

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. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] —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)

Starship.paint If it is "nearly a dozen" then the article shouldn't say "a dozen". We should say the exact number which we can easily come up with. I mean GamerGate has all of this information cataloged in multiple places online. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 15 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)
• I reverted this particular paragraph while (leaving GameStar in) to how it was at draft-merge. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay- why? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• The draft was the culmination of one month's worth of edits. Please see the archived decision to sync the draft, which already contained the words "within a day". The disputed change is removing the words, not adding them. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I mean, why did you revert the entire paragraph from what it was now to what it was around three weeks ago? The paragraph was changed by multiple editors for multiple different reasons. You shouldn't be abolishing the entirety of these changes because you're not able to instate your own, especially not when your change shows no particular reason to be enacted policy wise. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• The paragraph didn't change (baring 2 Wiki-links) from the draft-merge to 10/11 January, depending on where you live. Any changes were much more recent than you give credit for. As I said, it is the removal of the words which is contentious, not the addition. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I am able to see what was changed- you are mischaracterising the extent of your reversion, which is more than just 'two wiki-links'. Unless you can give policy based reasons as to why you reverted it wholesale (you are not to just say that it was this way before and you preferred it that way), I will reinstate the changes that were made- the paragraph seems much better as it was in terms of readability and accuracy to the sources quoted than as it is now that you have changed it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

For reference, I am talking about this edit, which you summarised as 'revert disputed content Talk:Gamergate controversy#Gamer identity: 'Within a day' to how it was originally at draft-merge'. Either you are not telling the truth here, or you are not telling the truth in your edit summary. Let me know. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• You're confusing everything. 1) Ignore all irrelevant GameStar content. 2) This is the version of draft-merge 22:16, 26 January 2015 (time where I live). I reverted to this version. 3) This is the consensus for using the draft-merge. 4) This is the version on 05:55, 11 February 2015 - the difference between 11 Feb and the draft merge is negligible. 5) This whole dispute started from 13:22, 11 February 2015, when "within a day" was removed. This dispute did not start when "within a day" was added. We revert back to how the article was before the dispute. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait, wait, slow down. The crux of the dispute is over the words "within a day"; reverting the entire section to where it was half a month ago over a one-word revision seems unnecessarily excessive. I also disagree with the basic idea of reverting to an edit from two weeks ago while discussions are in progress; if you actually feel that that entire version is better, you can make you case for it, but I feel it definitely does not enjoy that sort of consensus now, and I think that it's almost always better to propose a compromise (which many people above have taken stabs at) rather than to blanket-revert. Remember that consensus can change; and, beyond that, the kind of consensus you're talking about here (where you'd revert an edit for being against it) normally requires a degree of discussion and some sort of resolution, which I'm not sure these words ever got. Anyway, I tried editing it to a variation on one of the compromises suggested above. --Aquillion (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Aquillion, I think you need to change your edit to the article regarding this. The article can not say that "a dozen" opeds/articles were issued on a particular topic and later say that they were published within a day/24 hours because they were not. This is a fact that can be easily checked. I believe that 7 or 8 articles came out around the same day and the others a few days later (and there might have been more than a dozen). Either "a dozen" has to be changed or "within 24 hours" needs to be changed. From my POV, the important element is that these articles appeared shortly after each other and whether it was 7 or 12 is not that relevant. Should we list them here with their publication date and headline? Because they might have not all been on the exact same theme. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Starship Paint made that change, but he also made one I object to; specifically, he changed it to say (in the article text) that there were nearly a dozen "gamers are over" articles (making the implicit assertion, as a point of fact, that all of those articles were about that specific subject, rather than being eg about promoting diversity and opposing harassment, which is how most of the other sources in the paragraph characterize the articles in question.) That's WP:OR; we can list specific articles and say "this article said XYZ", but if we want to make sweeping claims that eg. nearly a dozen articles were saying the same thing (rather than just saying 'this specific article was saying this thing'), we have to assign that view to someone making that interpretation of the articles, and describe it as their view rather than as objective fact. We can say "so-and-so said gamers are dead", but we can't say "there were nearly a dozen gamers are dead" articles, because describing them all as 'gamers are dead' articles is stating Kain and Auerbach's opinions on them (and their interpretation of their topics) as if it were fact, when the other sources in the paragraph make it clear that their reading is controversial. In other words, it's not uncontroversial fact that these articles were all on the same topic, at least not in the way Kain and Auerbach's opinion-pieces make them out to be. And I'll reiterate, again, that Kain and Auerbach's pieces are opinion pieces -- they can be used as sources for Kain and Auerbach's opinions, but are generally not good sources for statements of fact, so anything sourced to them should generally be worded along the lines of eg. "Auerbach said..." or otherwise prefaced with something to make it clear that it is only their opinion. If we want to state something as fact, we should try to find reliable news sources covering it instead. --Aquillion (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition, only Kain says "nearly a dozen". Auerbach says "half a dozen". Woodroar (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was going over them and noticed that just as you did; I actually made an edit to that effect just before I saw your comment. In any case, we can't say either "nearly a dozen" or "half a dozen" without making it clear which one we're quoting, since it's obvious that they don't quite agree on which articles fit their categorization. --Aquillion (talk) 21:32, 16 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)

Yes, it is a conspiracy theory to claim that all media are inappropriately semi tainted against gg because- they are the media and gg says they are colluding. complete rubbish and nonsense, devoid of any contact with reality.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:41, 15 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)

I have to work long hours every day and so can't keep up with this conversation, so I'm sorry about starting at the left again but I'd like to reply generally to what's gone on above since my last post again.

This goes to the heart of what Wikipedia is about. The highest rule is, everyone should just be reasonable, and all other rules flow from that, and when application of a rule results in something unreasonable, that reasonability trumps rules, see WP:IAR and WP:RRULE.

Jimbo Wales was right to say that we are not "transcription monkeys". We are human beings capable of editorial judgement. Not everything in WP:RSes is equally reliable or article-worthy or worth us repeating with confidence. We can, do, and should look carefully at the sources to see whether they or the sources they describe reasonably seem to be in a position to know with reasonable certainty whether something particular thing they are saying is true or not, or whether sources they quote in the sources are themselves reliable enough for us to say, based on that, that something is true or not, and what we might best do about that.

For example, the NotYourShield section leaves the reader with the impression that all or most users of that hashtag are sockpuppets. But just because a source says that a biased party to the dispute told them that she had seen some proof that #notyourshild users are all sockpuppet accounts, that doesn't mean that this article should confidently state that they are in fact just sockpuppet hoaxes run by people of another sex and gender.

Furthermore, to continue with this example of #notyourshield, if a talk page contributor were, for example, say, to link us to a playlist he'd made of thousands YouTube videos of women who support #notyorurshield, some editors here seem likely to delete that evidence from the talkpage and instruct us all to pretend we hadn't seen it, treat it as unknowable by us and not let it influence which evidence about #notyourshield we present from the sources and how we present that to the readers, simply because that playlist is not something we can cite. This is not proper. ANY reasonable evidence that the article/sources are wrong about something important should always be welcomed by Wikipedians, and given due consideration with regard to how that something should appear in articles on Wikipedia, or what might be the proper way to respond to proof we can't cite that we/the sources are wrong. I could point to you many times in my years on Wikipedia when someone has come on the talk page and told us something was wrong but didn't have a citable source but one thing led to another and it led to article improvement. Many times the person was angry and not behaving properly, and some of us had trouble seeing past that to the important and useful criticism that person was making, but in the end the system worked anyway because good Wikipedians heard the people out and saw past such things as incivility and such to the important valid point(s) the person was making and didn't worry so much about the rest because the focus is only article improvement for the benefit of the reader, which is above all else.

In the case of this article, this has become a particular problem because of the nature of it's referent. Given the nature of the sources, some editors seem to have far too much certainty that everything these media sources say about this media consumer's revolt is worthy of inclusion simply because it's in these sources, as if they were Jimbo Wales's "transcription monkeys", when reasonable doubt and skepticism is at times definately in order about what they are saying about certain things such as for example they have no obvious way of knowing with any reasonable certainty what the demographics #notyourshield users are based on the evidence provided.

Sorry I don't have time to edit this more now because I have to sleep, big day tomorrow. Happy editing! Chrisrus (talk) 06:35, 16 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)

Links? I see no such assertion in our Salon article, that the harassment is coming from 3rd party trolls. I have seen statements that some harassment may be from outside agitators, but I haven't seen a single source take the stance that only outside agitators are harassing people. — Strongjam (talk) 00:37, 17 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)

Who is a spokesperson for Gamergate? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:21, 15 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)

Seriously... its a troll harassment campaign against women in video games. the reliable sources state over and over that "but ethics" is merely an "ostensible" cover/rallying cry. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

An argument of "There is other more important stuff" doesn't change the basic issue that Gamergate exists as something other than a controversy. The RS reflect that most of what is notable about it is the controversial aspects but it doesn't preclude it from existing in its own right. That is the comparison with Westboro. Koncorde (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't actually need to make a directed WP:OTHERSTUFF-argument because there basically is no coverage of Gamergate with the harassment removed; no coverage, and no notability to speak of. It was an attempt to underscore the essence of Gamergate with the harassment removed. Consider at least entertaining the idea as a possibility.

As for comparisons with Westboro Baptist Church, have you read that article recently? The information on the church itself is limited to three small paragraphs under "History". We keep the article under the church's name because churches are an established form of organization. Gamergate is not.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

But that wasn't the rationale for why Gamergate ended up at Gamergate controversy, the reason for that was the existence of another article with the same name. And otherwise there is a lot of coverage of Gamergate, massive chunks of it, often discussing its supporters and how they could change, or do better, or don't meet their objectives, or why they are a front for harassment...all of which is barely touched on currently as the article largely focuses on one significant aspect of the coverage when there are larger questions often being asked. Koncorde (talk) 18:31, 15 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)

The only thing that will "help" the position you are advocating for is if a whole lot of people from very respected publications start coming out with commentary and analysis that varies significantly from everything that has come before (with no new voices coming out with analysis and commentary that counters them). WP:UNDUE . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, we could start by actually giving the information and publications in play their proper weight. You on board? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that we are not the sources proper weight. Where are the more reliable sources not being given enough weight? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:26, 17 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)

Hey! New issue with this bit: Somebody had "disconnected from reality" added to the sentence summarising these commentator's views. While it's certainly very vicious, it doesn't seem at all representative of what we're sourcing here, and I don't think we can accurately use it to summarise Nathaniel's article in particular. Everybody fine with me removing this barb? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• That's the problem when you combine stuff. How about ... environment in video game culture; Givens described this culture as "aggressive" while Dotson described it as "toxic" and "disconnected from reality". Also, the current "have described the movement as a reaction to an increasingly progressive environment in video game culture, which they described as" is misleading -> could be misunderstood as "the movement" is aggressive etc. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • How about we go back to what it was before the change? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If you would like to revert it, kindly explain how it's better the way it was with policy based arguments (none of this 'two sides, teach the controversy' stuff), and revert it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Opposition to this is overwhelming. Regardless of merit, it has no hope of gaining consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

---

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: [10] [11] [12] [13]. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You should probably look at the sources before you post them as items we should follow:

• "Adam Baldwin will be appearing at this year's Supanova Pop Culture Expos in Perth and Sydney after all, but don't even think to ask about the controversy which threatened his visit. ... over claims he had advanced the GamerGate movement, an internet firestorm which reportedly lead to harassment, rape and death threats"
• huge surprise that Gamergate would be the basis for the next 'ripped from the headlines"' story on Law & Order: SVU The controversy has seen video game players harassing women to the point of death threats (one would note that SVU is "Sexual Victims Unit")
• " harassed by the Gamergate movement"
• Quinn’s abuse, at the hands of the nascent anti-feminist Gamergate movement

If those are the sources that "prove" its a movement, what the prove is that it is a harassment movement. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You've made your POV exceptionally clear on what you think the movement entails, but the fact remains that you're simply showing it's a movement. That's why the article should be titled as such. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

If your next request move is to Gamergate harassment movement based on the sources, I will support that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

No, talking about the harassment at the proper page title, Gamergate movement, is the NPOV way of handling things. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

NPOV means following the sources. The sources you provided support "controversy" or "harassment movement". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources I provided, as well as the majority of available reliable sources as far as we can tell, describe the topic as "Gamergate movement." Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

the sources you provided, as shown above, describe it as a controversy and as a harassment movement. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

As a movement, yes, but I repeat myself. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

yes, you keep repeating yourself, but not providing any sources that when they use the term "movement" are not classifying it as a "harassment movement". Per the sources, if moved to "Gamergate movement", the lead sentence describing it would be "Gamergate is a harassment movement". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The evidence speaks for itself and does not support your claim. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• • There are very few that have called it outright "the Gamergate controversy" as well. A (brief) search of our RS article titles show only 3 of them using the word to summarise the events that way. Many more have simply referred to it as Gamergate or #Gamergate. Koncorde (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Second link doesn't use "movement", but does use "controversy". Seems there are many RS for "controversy" (The Verge, The Guardian, International Business Times, PC Mag, KQED (part of NPR), TechCrunch, The Independent). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

We have to be careful there - a couple of those use controversy because they link to the wikipedia article of that name. Koncorde (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Striking KQED link (that's the only one I see linking to Wikipedia). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

And, for reference, my limited checking was done by title of articles. Admittedly most technology websites don't have to contend with the Ant for simplicity of reference. Koncorde (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Even with this in mind, a Google News search on both terms shows more for movement than controversy even with points to this article. No, Google News is not the final arbiter, but it's quite clearly a movement. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:41, 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)
  • The focus of the reliable sources we opt to use is the controversy surrounding one aspect of the movement. This doesn't mean it's not a movement. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no problems with calling Gamergate a "movement". The term itself means little. But the Gamergate movement is simply not the subject of virtually any reliable sources, which means it's not a particularly notable movement as far as we're concerned. On the other hand, reliable sources write a lot about the controversy and events and people who are getting harassed, which is why this article exists. Woodroar (talk) 23:12, 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)
  • This is not an argument. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:41, 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)
  • There is countless evidence about the existence of the movement independent of the harassment that has occurred. This is not a true statement in any way. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

if by "countless" you mean "0" - a number that you cannot count to, then yes. If you mean "countless" in its traditional meaning, then please provide some of these "countless" stories that cover gamergate without any coverage of the harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support. What they're chiefly known for is irrelevant to how we classify them. To use an example from recent discussion (the Westboro Baptist Church) and paraphrasing Peter's quote above: "If it weren't for the funeral protests, homophobia and other destructive behavior, mainstream media wouldn't have cared one bit about the WBC" -- and yet, we do not call the article "The Westboro Baptist Church Controversy." Instead, when considering how wikipedia should define leaderless movements the comparison to Occupy is apt and the test, given we refer to Occupy as a movement, is whether Gamergate has more or less "officiality" than Occupy. Gamergate has a website, a hashtag, a web forum (with over 25K members), a press pack, logos, a video game character -- all "official", all reported in RSs -- so they at least equal Occupy in that regard. I would add, as has been mentioned, were "Gamergate" not already taken it would have been an obvious, uncontroversial choice. It seems the difference in definition between "Gamergate" and "Gamergate Movement" is less than between "Gamergate" and "Gamergate Controversy" and we should choose the one closer to the uncontroversial ideal. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)— EncyclopediaBob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

None of those things are "official" in any sense of the term. Indeed the website has a disclaimer on it saying "In no way are we an official GamerGate website." — Strongjam (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

In the literal sense of the word I agree with you completely -- that's why my first usage was in quotes (and I'll quote the 2nd.) It's impossible for a leaderless, unofficial movement to have anything strictly official. But in the sense of comparison to Occupy, the Gamergate members and material are no more or less official, so the relevant comparison is in quantity of membership and material. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

As pointed out in the threads above, Occupy Wall Street was notable and received media attention without ever engaging in any controversy equivalent to Gamergate harassment. No such coverage exists of Gamergate.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the occupation of Wall Street wasn't / isn't a controversial act? Koncorde (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

My wording was "controversy equivalent to Gamergate harassment". I'm saying that Occupy (which is more than physical occupation of New York streets) was and is notable for more than malicious methods. And on top of that, there's the public nature of the protests, tons of notable supporters and clearly stated aims. I don't see the relevance of your question.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment "Gamergate (hashtag)" seems more appropriate to me then "Gamergate movement". Although I think controversy is just fine. — Strongjam (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I would support Gamergate (hashtag) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It's an improvement but "hashtag" ignores the 8chan and reddit boards, where most organizing and discussion take place. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not against this as an alternative, but definitely not my first choice. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose According to pretty much all the coverage in reliable sources, GamerGate is notable almost solely because of its controversial aspects. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose GamerGate is a movement inasmuch as it's a hate movement. Controversy is a commodious and accurate term for this row (as the Brits would say). kencf0618 (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Gamergate controversy" is preferable as it is neutral. "Gamergate campaign" is used most often by those working against sexism in gaming, or against the harassment of women by gamers. "Gamergate movement" is used most often by gamers defending sexism in games, and denying or downplaying the harassment. We would be grossly in error if we choose the favorite term of one side over the other. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem with "Gamergate controversy" is that it is quite clearly not neutral. It takes a clear position on the situation that violates NPOV. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The term "controversy" isn't partial to anything since it just implies disagreement, of which there is plenty. Peter ^Isotalo 12:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen328. I also could be persuaded by "hashtag," however, with the right arguement and sourcing. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 02:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose As long as it's described as misogyny and harassment campaign, it's a fringe and tiny group. I don't understand opposers that wish to describe it as a widespread campaign of misogyny and harassment but oppose "movement." We could have a separate GamerGate Movement article outside the small group of trolls that explains the issues of journalism, feminism and gaming without all the mansplaining that goes on now. --03:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support. If a group is unworthy of being covered, perhaps we shouldn't cover it. That it receives negative coverage is not a reason to give it a confusing name. The title should reflect what the article is about. For example, the article discusses pro- and anti-Gamergate factions, as well as "supporters" and "opponents." This makes sense only if you think of Gamergate as a movement. No one is pro-controversy or a supporter of controversy. The eigenvector (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

while the depth and detail of our coverage this harassment by internet trolls is certainly an example of WP:BIAS given the depth and detail of our coverage of, say the leaders of countries of Africa, there is nothing that says an article must be about a "group" . see Category:Events, Category:Memes, Category:Conspiracy theories, Category:Controversies, Category:Misogyny. what has been covered has been the harassment which lead to a discussion about the deeper issues of sexism/gender bias in gaming- not the "group" which denies that the actions that have been covered are actually emanating from it, in essence, establishing the non-notability of the "group" from their own perspective.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Regardless of how well (or not) it's served its stated purpose, and regardless of where the harassment is coming from, last I checked, there weren't enough RSs covering said purpose for us to write about it, and the only notable thing here is the harassment. Like many others here, however, I wouldn't oppose moving the article to "Gamergate (hashtag)" or something similar, if only to reduce (even slightly) the confusion about its subject. Random ^(?) 07:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I first came to this article upon noticing a pending change in need of review; during a session of recent changes patrol. Prior to that, the only Gamergate (controversy) I was aware of was the Arbcom brouhaha, of which; I took in no details. Without bias, the pending change was resolved, and I gave a good faith effort to copyedit the lead, which introduced a sentence that read: 'The leaderless, amorphous group that acted under the hashtag has become known as the "Gamergate movement".' Rightfully, that statement has been removed as it did not comport well with the sources. With my face in my palms, I apologize for the synthesis that statement introduced. As clearly as it is inappropriate to make such a statement in the lead, it seems that much more inappropriate as the article's title. The arguments above augment that clarity and I therefor do oppose the move to Gamergate movement. I do think there are good arguments for moving the page however, and suggest Gamergate (controversy); using controversy merely to disambiguate the title from Gamergate.--John Cline (talk) 08:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Or how about Gamergate Harassment Campaign? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)— ForbiddenRocky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Funny. Meşteşugarul - U 17:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• • Definitely a loaded term. And if you can have a "campaign" surely you can have a "movement". Koncorde (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not noteworthy outside of the harassment. Cupidissimo (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• strongest oppose as a "movement" it is meaningless and non notable. it is only notable for the controversy it has engendered. and we have multiple reliable sources looking at the unorganized, leaderless rabble and saying, "nope. its not a movement"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Why not just move the ant page to Gamergate (ant), and have this as Gamergate? At the point we are now I'm fairly certain if you asked a random person what Gamergate is, they'd be far more likely to mention the hashtag than the ant.Bosstopher (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • because in the grand scheme of things, this troll harassment campaign will be forgotten in a few years and gamergate ants will still be studied and discussed in a hundred years. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I actually would rather this Wikipedia page not exist at all, but I think that "controversy" is the fairest way to describe this whole ordeal, although the way in which we go about describing such controversy is questionable at best. I did not want to get involved in this, and I probably will continue to avoid touching the subject, since I think that any good faith edits from a neutral point of view may get me sanctioned. Meşteşugarul - U 17:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This can be revisited when recentism has passed. Until then this is a controversy considering the claims made by both sides. Avono (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• This right here. I can agree with this. Meşteşugarul - U 17:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's clear that all sources are covering it as a controversy; it's not clear that even a majority of them are covering it as a movement. --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • As noted above, this is clearly untrue. Most reliable sources call it a movement while discussing the controversy surrounding parts of it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    • No, no, that's not what you showed above! You were responding to someone who said that nobody was referring to it as a movement (which I disagree with, yeah), but I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that "most reliable sources" are covering it as a coherent movement; and I definitely feel that controversy, in that respect, is more all-encompassing term (since all reliable sources, as far as I can tell, are covering it as an internet controversy.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
      • You can disagree, but the evidence is clearly not in your favor. Furthermore, when you say "all sources are covering it as a controversy," that is not true. Most of the sources we're using here are, but we're not using all the available reliable sources to their full weighted extent, either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I think there's enough evidence to doubt your assertions about coverage above, anyway. Going over the article's sources, there are a lot that don't cover the subject, in particular, as a movement, including here, here, here, here, here, and here, just to start. And this one describes it as a 'movement' in scare quotes, showing that they find the descriptor controversial. Many of them cover it as a hashtag, as a mob, as an event, and so on, while many others emphasize that they have trouble categorizing it or describing exactly what it is. I feel that 'controversy' adequately unifies all of this coverage without discarding any of it, while titling it as a 'movement' would implicitly downplay the sources I linked and many like them (many of which are some of the highest-quality sources we have in the article.) Though I dislike rigidly dividing sources up according to this distinction, even the sources that I would roughly characterize as 'favorable' to Gamergate clearly seem to characterize it as a controversy (describing it as an issue with two sides, or as an ongoing culture war, or in similar terms.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
          • There's really no evidence to make me doubt the assertion that it's a movement that is controversial, no. That there has been selective use of sources is a problem with this article, yes, but for NPOV purposes there really isn't another option but to move it, and the opposition rationales thus far are extremely weak, if not outright counterfactual. We handle no other topic like the way we handle this one. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Quote: "Most of the sources we're using here are, but we're not using all the available reliable sources to their full weighted extent, either." I see this as a problem, honestly. There were reliable sources introduced by some, but they were immediately deleted and the diffs were later removed from the archives (removing evidence). The state of the handling of this article is deplorable at best, pernicious at worst. There are, in my honest opinion, too many editors with a horse in this race for anything productive to come out of the article.Meşteşugarul - U 19:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
          • If links were removed and rev-deleted it was because of BLP concerns for linking to unreliable sources not to "remove evidence." — Strongjam (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
          • This is sadly too true. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Aquillion, especially since by far the majority of sources that do mention the stated goals of Gamergate supporters go on to also mention the negative aspects associated with it. 3-sphere (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose One can't call a decentralized group of people, spread over many social media platforms and forums, united only by the use of a hashtag, a "movement". A movement implies some degree of organization and common purpose or goals and GamerGaters have gone out of their way to say that they have neither. A movement also has to have some criteria that establishes membership...if everyone is or can be a member, you don't have a group or movement. Bottom line, a movement needs some definition and GamerGate lacks that in spades. I think they would have accomplished more if they had some structure but that opinion is neither here not there. Right now, GamerGate is a hashtag, a debate, an event. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Precisely this. Meşteşugarul - U 00:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's not the movement part that's notable. I would be willing to consider a move from "Gamergate controversy" to "Gamergate attacks", but I suspect that wouldn't please the GG supporters any better. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support* This article is not about the #gamergate controversy or any controversy. Articles about controversies describe (at least) two points of view, and this article presents only one. If it is to stay here, it must be written as other articles about controversies are written. Chrisrus (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

What two points of view? "Harassment is bad" vs "Harassment is good" ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Whether or not you would call gamergate a movement, the controversy is the notable subject that is covered in reliable sources and that seems to be the topic of this article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Possible new source from PandoDaily

Not sure about the reliability of this article or if there's a place for it here but it does seem interesting how GamerGate seems to is be a destination to recruit new plaintiffs for a Gawker lawsuit. Court docs: Lawyers for Gawker interns plan to find new plaintiffs by spamming Gamergate on Reddit. GamerPro64 05:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Instead of using that source, you could use the United States District Court's own document. None of the claims that have been made in the court document on PandoDaily exist in the original filing on the 15th of September, 2014. Meşteşugarul - U 18:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Court documents are generally considered primary sources and the things that can be sourced to them are quite limited. See e.g. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 19#Are court documents reliable sources?. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Recentism

The whole article lacks substance. The only interesting thing I could find was the data about the number of tweets. Spannerjam 18:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The primary reason the media cares about this group is because of its success with advertiser boycotts. But that issue doesn't even make it into the lead. The eigenvector (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, but not true - the media took interest long before any boycott took place, and the limited success of the boycotts has drawn very minimal attention. Not saying it shouldn't be in the lead, but misrepresenting its significance helps nobody. Koncorde (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Correct, the only reason there is any coverage of the "boycotts" is because the companies that responded to them looked terribly bad, as if they were supporting the harassment (that is actually what gamergate is noted for)- and that the companies that had inappropriately responded to the boycotts, very quickly un-responded, and in the case of intel went on to actively court Sarkeesian. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

That's enough, thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This again? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC) In all frankness, this article may get better as time passes. Right now there are too many people (particularly unblockables) who have a vested interest in GamerGate one way or the other. A few more years will pass, and once again neutral editors may feel like touching the subject. I certainly am afraid of adding my own contributions to the article (aside from correcting grammar and spelling) due to the butchering that some neutral editors have received, despite ArbCom's decision on the matter. Meşteşugarul - U 22:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC) WP:CIV /WP:NPA please stop tossing accusations and names at other editors. Present your arguments based upon what the sources say. (and you could strike the above to demonstrate that you are here for the project and not for personal agenda)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Forgive me. I may have been a little underhanded. However, I have yet to recall mentioning the name of an editor. For this very reason I stand back and just watch. Regarding the whole controversy in itself, I consider myself uninvolved (particularly because I have been more focused on things like my business and I normally don't like prying into any political battles). I only came here because a few people on a social media network I visit regularly have been talking about the article, saying some very negative things about ArbCom's decision. My point is, The eigenvector, that this article will probably take a very long time to fully flesh out. It always happens with controversies that many people have deep personal investments in (on both sides of the aisle). Meşteşugarul - U 22:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC) You may not have specified anyone by name, but your comment cannot be seen as anything but attacks on other editors currently on the page.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC) I'm sorry if my comments have inspired ire. I didn't mean to sound daft. Truce? Meşteşugarul - U 23:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Yes, unsupported accusations and aspersions against other editors either specifically by name or by implicit connection will tend to inspire ire. That is why they are not allowed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of social justice category

Hi! I noticed that the social justice category was removed, and TheRedPenOfDoom has commented in edit notes that the only connection with this is the rants against people purportedly called "SJWs". While I agree that this assertion has merit, I'd like to discuss with you whether the removal was justified or not, and perhaps persuade the editor to revert the edit.

I present my reasoning: Even though Gamergate isn't a "social justice movement" per se, it does pertain to the issue of social justice in video gaming culture. The persons impacted (women in the gaming industry) have been affected by this ordeal, and I find the fact that they were affected by harassment to be relevant to the theme of social justice. I want to hear the thoughts of the Wikipedia community, and most importantly, the thoughts of the editor who made this edit, to see if we can come to a conclusion that could help me understand why this edit was made. TRPoD is, in my opinion, a much more experienced editor, so perhaps I could gain a little insight into why these changes were made and whether the changes were made to adhere to a Wikipedia policy. Thank you! Meşteşugarul - U 16:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Just based on the current contents of Category:Social justice I don't think this article really belongs. Maybe in a sub-category though? — Strongjam (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

My first and biggest mistake here, it seems, was to neglect opening the category itself. Thank you for bringing some clarity :) Meşteşugarul - U 16:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you coming from the view that the opposition to gg, the universal analysis and commentary that "women in gaming shouldnt be harassed" is the social justic connection? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Kind of is a social justice connection, but one that is probably covered in a more specific category such as Category:Discrimination — Strongjam (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

In short, yes. The theme revolving around the opposition is a perceived hostility against women in the gaming industry and even in the technology industry. I can infer that some of the references used in this article decry the amount of outright hostility against women who try to make a place for themselves within these respective communities. But Strongjam has already made it clear to me that the article doesn't fit in the category. Meşteşugarul - U 16:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I assumed that's why the category was there. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You all are more experienced than I am, so I normally just default to deferring to your logic. Strongjam has made a good point that the article is unfit to be included in a category that has articles with another nature of coverage, then suggested instead that we add it to Category:Discrimination. When browsing through that category, it seems more fitting. I see this as a purely semantic issue. Meşteşugarul - U 17:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can accurately describe anybody in the gaming industry as 'implicated' by gamergate- that implies actual guilt on their part. I'm perfectly fine with this article not being in the 'social justice' category, given the seeming current focus of it. It doesn't quite fit with the others. PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I meant to say "impacted". Thanks for pointing that out. I will edit my statement. Meşteşugarul - U 16:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I'm glad the discussions like this are civil and the merits of the edits can be considered, not in consideration of how the article will be viewed by readers but by how the GamerGate Controversy fits into larger categories of Wikipedia. Since many of the conversations and debates here concern very small edits, it's easy to focus on the trees and miss seeing the forest. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit I had dealt my own fair share of (slightly) stupid behavior on Wikipedia (also particularly in this talk page). But in general, I appreciate the effort that everyone else takes and take heed when stronger and more experienced editors than myself give me a talking to. I think I may write a little advice column on this in a subpage of my user page, but this is what I take from my experience in Wikipedia so far:

• The fact that I've toiled endlessly on an article does not make me more right than another editor who reverted my changes.
• I must become detached from the subject matter to have a clearly objective view on it. If I cannot do this, I must stay away from it.
• I must resist the temptation to "right great wrongs" and instead focus on the ultimate goal of improving Wikipedia.
• I must remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battlezone or truth-finding mission. Reliable sources are all we have to indicate something as objectively "true".
• Editing with someone who opposes my POV might actually become a learning experience if I approach the person in a proper manner and put aside my own ego. Every time I edited alongside others who were diametrically opposed to my POV, it was (perhaps ironically?) a pleasant experience, one which teaches me a lot about people on "the other side" that I may not have considered. Meşteşugarul - U 19:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Mestesugarul, one element of editing on Wikipedia that is still hard for me to accept is that a dozen editors can hash out differences of opinion, try to come to a consensus on any number of conflicts, over a period of months...and any one of us could return to this article a year later and find the article has been completely rewritten! There is no final version. While that is humbling (and helps to prevent WP:OWN), it does put some disputes into a little perspective. We can spend pages and pages arguing over one aspect of the article and some future editor can come by and rewrite it all. Those changes might (or might not) be reverted...but the take-away is that we can polish this and polish this article but there is no final, unchangeable version of GamerGate controversy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Back to the original question that started this thread, I agree with removing this article from the social justice category. The only connection that I see is the persistent effort by some GamerGate supporters to take the generally positive two word phrase "social justice" and transform it into a three word pejorative "social justice warrior" as a verbal weapon to attack and caricature their opponents. That's my view of the matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The term social justice has been around before Gamergaters added "warrior" to it and presented it as something bad. Had I heard the term before seeing it beaten to death in a Gamergate context, I would have considered it a compliment. Or at least a fairly neutral description of highly devoted activists.

Wikipedia will be around long after Gamergate vanishes into obscurity and so will the term "social justice". I am very strongly opposed to any suggestion that we allow terms like "social justice" be defined by a vocal loud-mouthed minority of sexist video gamers.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the term's been around long before GG blew it up. But back then, depending on context, it was either a positive term for people who put a lot on the line for social justice (like Gandhi and MLK) or an insult referring to people who try to use privilege arguments for all the wrong ends, especially as an excuse for harassment (like the stereotypical Tumblr user). Sadly, very few who haven't had to deal with the latter on a regular basis knew about the term before GG, and /pol/ - from which a good chunk of 8chan's GG board came - thinks those two definitions are one and the same (on the grounds that "money is the only real privilege" or something, IIRC), so here we are. In any case, though, yeah, per Cullen, I support the removal. Random ^(?) 14:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If anything, it seems we even have a consensus supporting the removal from the category. Meşteşugarul - U 13:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Givens and Dotson

So one of the Givens references has been entirely replaces by a Dotson ref. This is strange by itself. But, also, the Dotson inclusion has problems with confusing antecedents, and looks like UNDUE and endrun around SOAPBOX. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: there needs to be a RS showing "their negativity" before putting a reaction opinion to that. Otherwise it a strawman argument. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

ForbiddenRocky, I get your points but I recommend reading the discussion on these articles farther up on the Talk Page where this is discussed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't realize one of the above topics had mutated to cover these two sources. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

tl;dr

this article has gotten way too long... needs heavy editing back down to a manageable size or to be broken up. Tom (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Current article is 127.9 kb. Over 100 kb is recommended for splitting. (WP:SIZERULE) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: That's 100 kB of readable prose, the current size of 127,953 bytes includes markup, references, etc.. Plain text prose size according to Prosesize is 43 kB. — Strongjam (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Strongjam. Then this article is perfect length. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Strongjam, where do you locate this kind of information? Just curious. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Liz, I was curious too, but it's in the link they have: Prosesize. Very useful tool it seems. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEAD - For long articles where people may not put the effort to read all the way through, all they need to do is read the lead. I think the lead does a pretty good job of covering the important "takeaways" from the the article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the lede could be improved. One thing I'm sure about is that it will continue to be contested for months to come. This is an article that needs to be on a lot of Watchlists for the foreseeable future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the lead needs improvement too. It does not explain why the female developers were subject to the attacks, or why the attacks are notable in the first place (4chan, et al. are always trolling somebody). Tom (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes certain incidents set off a chain of events that makes them notable. In this case it became a very obvious example of issues with sexism in the video gaming community.

The reason for the attacks is given quite clearly in the lead: sexism. Just like with racist attacks, the method wording of the attack become its own rationale. We can elaborate on the underlying reasons for racism or sexism, but that's more relevant to articles like sexism in video gaming.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not explain why female software developers were subject to attacks, because the preponderant opinion of reliable sources is that the attacks are inexplicable. Scant explanation of why they are notable is needed; the preponderant opinion of reliable sources is that they are a notable pattern of criminal behavior. The lede does a fairly adequate job of communicating this. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

the sources do have an "explanation" of why GG targeted Wu - she made fun of them. But I dont think we need to get into that level of detail in the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

SVU as "amalgam"

The source says: As expected, the fictional woman at the receiving end of the episode's online, game-related harassment was an amalgam of real women in the games industry. The character Raina Punjabi (played by actress Mouzam Makkar) resembles Feminist Frequency host Anita Sarkeesian in no uncertain terms (hair pulled back, giant earrings, shown in online videos giving monologues). It does not say the character is an amalgam of Sarkeesian, Quinn, and Wu. Stick to what the source says: the character resembles Sarkeesian. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir (talk · contribs), Ars Technica's article literally says "the fictional woman at the receiving end of the episode's online, game-related harassment was an amalgam of real women in the games industry". It's true that several sources mention Sarkeesian as the most obvious model, but it's not the only person on which the character is based (see the sentence "a lot of gamers think..." in the article). I hesitated between two versions for that sentence, would you find this other one acceptable?:

...including a character modeled after Anita Sarkeesian and other real women involved in the controversy.

Diego (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. My sentence in the article didn't say anything about Quinn, and Wu, so I understand the reason for your revert. Diego (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Would "modeled after Sarkeesian and based on multiple women involved in the controversy" or something similar work for you? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm introducing it in the article. Diego (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat what I said above, and say that I don't feel it's really worth covering the SVU episode in the article. Yes, it might seem a bit relevant now (since it's the only recent thing in the news to reference the controversy), but ultimately it's just trivia -- it doesn't seem to have added anything, and pretty much all the commentary on it is that it didn't really contribute much in terms of analysis or insight or whatever. At best, maybe we could mention it in passing in the timeline, but honestly, SVU does a ripped-from-the-headlines episode all the time, and it isn't usually worth mentioning them in their corresponding Wikipedia article. Six months from now, is anyone looking back on this likely to care that there was a SVU episode referencing it? It'd be different if the episode had happened early on (and was therefore part of what brought it to popular attention or made it notable or the like), but as it stands it just feels like trivia to me. --Aquillion (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible source from VG247

So with the result of the Law and Order: SVU episode, it caused developer Mark Kern to write a petition to have Kotaku and Polygon to be held responsible for the episode. The petition itself has over 1000 signers. And the article mentions GamerGate a lot in it too. Developers shooting the messenger: stop blaming the press for sexist extremism in games. GamerPro64 17:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd leave it out for now, seems kind of like a small issue in the large scale of things. The op-ed from vg247 is seems pretty dismissive of the petition. Unrelated, but someone should add some sources to Mark Kern, otherwise it should be deleted. — Strongjam (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It might be the best for us to not have this added to the article. Re-reading it a second had me realize that the writer for the article may have quoted himself in it. I don't think that's a good sign. GamerPro64 17:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the author quotes himself in the very first sentence. In any case, I'm with Strongjam in that this doesn't seem big enough to be worth covering. Random ^(?) 22:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Relevance to subject of the article?

in Gamergate_controversy#Targeting_advertisers the final sentence of the second paragraph (particularly the second half) have to do with the subject of this article? "The Columbia Journalism Review commented that, while the tweets were likely jokes, "it's no secret that Gawker is the bully of the [I]nternet."" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I was never a fan of it's inclusion, just seems to be there to take a swipe at Gawker. Doesn't really add to the readers understanding of the controversy. — Strongjam (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think a better pull quote might be "While the issue goes into convoluted gamergate territory, it didn’t make Gawker...look good." The source and information is relevant, but I don't love the quote we have. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that quote is better if we need one. Gives more context, it didn't make Gawker look very good, and it was a bit convoluted, hence immediate reactions from companies like Adobe. — Strongjam (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm in favour of just removing it altogether- doesn't seem like it adds much information to the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)