This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.
Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
The dispute must have beenrecently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.
Volunteers should remember:
Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.
Open/close quick reference
To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, We have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The closer of the RfC states: There are WP:RS on both sides here, and people working in good faith can come to the opposite conclusion as to which the the right answer is. The Context matters bit is important however, and some of the sources are certainly less reliable for historical analysis than others.[1]
Therefore I think that Darkness Shines's sentence The War of the Pacific started on February 14, 1879 doesn't meet the WP rules for neutrality. I proposed:
The crisis sharpened on February 14, 1879 when Chilean armed forces occupied the port city of Antofagasta,[2]
Some authors set the beginning of the war with the first naval battles, others on February 14, 1879 when Chilean armed forces, enthusiastic welcomed by the population, occupied the port city of Antofagasta (83% Chilean population), as the Bolivian authorities pretended to auction the confiscated property of Chilean CSFA, although the first battle occurred in Topater on 23 March 1879, after the Bolivian Declaration of War and before the Chilean Declaration of War.[3][4]
Both proposals have been reverted by DS, those only proposal has been The War of the Pacific started on February 14, 1879. There is no mention of any other dates or sources.
I ask DS to make a proposal considering the other sources that have analysed the significance of the 14 February (Sater, Farcau, and Pike). --Keysanger (Talk) 09:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the RFC did have a solution, and that was the edits I had made were fine. And the arguing over the sources was plain old wiki lawyering. However I am happy to change the current content to "the war began on February 14, 1879 with the Chilean landing of troops and capture of the port city of Antofagasta,[1][2] On 20 February Daza learned that Chilean forces had occupied Antofagasta, and requested aid from Peru based on the secret alliance between the two nations, following this on 1 March Bolivia issued a formal declaration of war against Chile"[3]
^Pike, Fredrick B. (1977). The United States and the Andean Republics: Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador. Harvard University Press. p. 128. ISBN978-0674923003. Chile broke off diplomatic relations and on February 14, 1879, landed troops that took possession of Antofagasta, thus triggering the War of the Pacific
^Henderson, James D.; Delpar, Helen; Brungardt, Maurice Philip; Weldon, Richard N. (1999). A Reference Guide to Latin American History. M.E. Sharpe. p. 155. ISBN978-1563247446.
^Marley, David (1998). Wars of the Americas: A Chronology of Armed Conflict in the New World, 1492-1997. ABC-CLIO. p. 584. ISBN978-0874368376.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
WP:Talk:War of the Pacific#RfC: Which are the relevant facts for the LEDE regarding the 14 February 1879? discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Administrative note: I've notified User:Darkness Shines about this case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC) I've also added and notified two other users who were involved in the dispute on the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC) PS I'm not opening this case, just trying to help get it ready for another volunteer to take and moderate.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions for Compromise
This case is now open. [Let's discuss one sentence at a time] One proposal is to change current content to:
the war began on February 14, 1879 with the Chilean landing of troops and capture of the port city of Antofagasta,[1][2]
^Pike, Fredrick B. (1977). The United States and the Andean Republics: Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador. Harvard University Press. p. 128. ISBN978-0674923003. Chile broke off diplomatic relations and on February 14, 1879, landed troops that took possession of Antofagasta, thus triggering the War of the Pacific
^Henderson, James D.; Delpar, Helen; Brungardt, Maurice Philip; Weldon, Richard N. (1999). A Reference Guide to Latin American History. M.E. Sharpe. p. 155. ISBN978-1563247446.
Nay. I can't go with that proposal. @DS: why don't you consider the other sources, for example, Willian Sater, emeritus professor of history at California State University-Long Beach?. He has written the probably most detailed book about the war. Please, take a look to Andean Tragedy. He states in page 28: Only on 5 April did Santiago reciprocate, plunging South America's west coast into what became known as the War of the Pacific, a conflict that lasted until 1884. If you unconditionally insist to say that some authors set the begin on 14/F, I would accept it under the condition that the same sentence states that other authors set it to different dates. --Keysanger (talk)07:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gods no, Given you are cherry picking a part from that source and misrepresenting it. The bit you missed out was "two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed “a state of war” on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March. Only on 5 April did Santiago reciprocate, plunging South America’s west coast into what became known as the War of the Pacific, a conflict that lasted until 1884." Did you not notice that war had already been declared? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia distinguishes between primary and secondary sources. The passage you present is a primary source: The author, William Sater, states that "Daza declared that Chile imposed ...he announced ...". Take a look to "he declared" and "he announced". It is HE, Daza, the Bolivian dictator and not Sater, the historian. Wikipedia doesn't accept primary sources because they can reflect the interest of the author at that time to influence the events.
The part of the sentence I transcribed is a secondary source. The author, William Sater, states that in his own opinion the war started "only" on 5 April. Wikipedia demands the use of only secondary sources.
Regarding your question that war had already been declared, you are confusing the 14 February with 18 March, the day Bolivia declared war on Chile. We are talking here about the 14. February. So, on 14 February and much more later there was no war according to your cite. Please, let me know if you don't understand my rationale. --Keysanger (talk)15:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Core of dispute for this sentence
First, stop addressing and referencing each other and personalizing the discussion. We are here to discuss text and sources only not people and their alleged deeds or motives. Now.....Let's see if we can find some common ground here. The two sentences are not that far apart:
The war began --on February 14, 1879 with the Chilean-- landing of troops and capture of-- the port city of Antofagasta
The crisis sharpened --on February 14, 1879 when Chilean-- armed forces occupied--the port city of Antofagasta
The "landing of troops and capture of" is the same thing as "armed forces occupied". So the dispute seems to be over the first three words:
The war began
The crisis sharpened
So the core of the dispute for this sentence is over the characterization of the occupation/capture as a either a war or a crisis. Correct?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, KS insists the war did not begin in the 14 of Feb, even though we have RS which says this. My position is to follow what those RS say, which is when the war started, when war was declared and so on. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DS, did you hear what I just said? Stop personalizing the discussion. Comment on the content, not the other editor, and stop pretending to know what other editors are thinking or doing or what their position is. Speak for your self only and speak only about the content.
The difference between the two sentences is the characterization of Feb 14 military capture of Antofagasta. Whether it was the day the war began or just an event that led up to the war. Isn't that the core of the dispute in this sentence? Once we've established that as the core issue, we can begin to examine and evaluate the sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are right Keith, the core of the question is the 14 February. Was it the start of the war or only one pivotal date in the road to the war?. That is the central question in dispute. --Keysanger (talk)15:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue about "Declaration of War" is beyond controversy in this article. Bolivia declared war on Chile on 28 March 1879, Chile declared war on Peru and Bolivia on 5 April 1879 and Peru responded by acknowledging the casus foederis on 6 April 1879. All this data is present in the article and it is unquestioned. --Keysanger (talk)13:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources regarding occupation of Antofagasta
OK, good, let's compile the sources and see what they say. Could the two of you please list the sources that you feel pertain to the issue of whether or not the occupation of Antofagasta was the start of the war or a precursor to it. Please list the source, a URL if possible, and a quote from the source. If you have already given them above then could you please copy and paste them here so we can see them all together side by side. Then we can examine and discuss the language of each source and see if some agreeable wording is possible based on what the sources say. Thanks! :-)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
===Sources stating that the war started on another day or situation than the 14 February 1879===
[5]La guerra se desarrolló en varias etapas, siendo la primera la campaña marítima, en la que se produjo el famoso Combate Naval de Iquique. (Transl.: "The war had several phases, the first one was the naval campaign, when occurred the Naval Battle of Iquique ...")
[6]La primera etapa de la contienda se extendió hasta el 8 de octubre de 1879 y se caracterizó por la lucha por el dominio del mar entre las escuadras de Perú y Chile (Transl.: "The first phase of the war lasted until 8.Oct.1879 and was characterised by a fight for the control of the sea ...")
[7]The war began at sea, when Chilean warships blockaded Peruvian and Bolivian ports.
[8], En torno a los Orígenes de La Guerra del Pacífico, Luis Ortega, El 5 de abril de 1879 se inició oficialmente una guerra que por cinco años enfrentó a Bolivia y Perú, por un lado, y a Chile, por otro. (Transl.: "On 5 April started oficially a war that for 5 years ...")
[9]Más tarde, el 5 de abril de ese mismo año, cuando Perú reconoció la existencia de un tratado secreto con Bolivia, Chile decidió declarar la guerra a ambos países. Así, comienza la Guerra del Pacífico. (Transl.: "Later, on 5 April of that year, when Peru accepted the existence of a secret treaty with Bolivia, Chile decided to declare the war on both countries. So began the War of the Pacific ...")
[10]Chile no quería ir a la guerra, pero cuando quedó al descubierto que en 1873 Bolivia había firmado con el Perú un pacto secreto que los obligaba a respaldarse mutuamente ante "toda agresión del exterior", el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores chileno declaró que "la guerra es el único camino que nos queda". (Transl.: "Chile didn't want to wage the war but when it became generally known that in 1873 Bolivia had signed a secret treaty with Peru ... the Chilean Foreign Minister declared that "the war is the only way ...")
[11]The "Saltpetre War," referring to the desert’s nitrate deposits, officially began in February 1879 when Bolivia threatened to tax a Chilean mining operation in the port city of Antofagasta and in doing so broke a recently agreed treaty
es:Nelson Manrique, "La guerra del pacífico: una revisión crítica." in a comment by Mariano Chiappe in [12] states that:
El acto de fuerza de chile en Antofagasta provocó una febril actividad diplomática. El gobierno peruano trató por todos los medios de conseguir que el conflicto se solucionara por medio de un arbitraje, pues sabía que de desencadenarse la guerra se veía inevitablemente implicado.
(transl.: The Chilean act of force started a frantic diplomatic activity. The Peruvian government tried by any means to resolve the conflict by mediation, for they know that if the war started, Peru would be inescapable envolved)
Alejandro Reyes Flores, "Relaciones internacionales en el Pacifico Sur", en "La Guerra del Pacifico", published by Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, 1979 page 120-123:
El Peru opto por las negociaciones, que no gusta a Bolivia. Tambien Chile esperaba o alentaba un golpe militar en Bolivia, que al parecer, le iba a favorecer. Todo ello inclino a Chile a aceptar la mediacion, pero esta, no podia prolongarse por mucho tiempo, puesto que favorecia al Peru en sus apresto militares de ultima hora. Ademas, Chile necesitaba un poco de tiempo para presentar al Peru como "perfido" y preparar psicologicamente a su pueblo sobre la guerra que ya era inevitable (transl.:Peru chose to mediate ..., Chile needed time to ...)
El presidente chileno el 24 de marzo de 1879 manifestaba a Lavalle [the Peruvian mediatior] lo siguiente: ... pero que no existiendo realmente ningun motivo de guerra entre Peru y Chile, cuyos comunes intereses exigian el siempre ir de acuerdo, no veia por que se debia llegar a tan dolorosa extremidad y que todo podia evitarse con la simple declaracion de neutralidad por parte del Peru (transl.: "On 24 March ... the Chilean President said: there are no reasons to make a war ... all what we need is a Peruvian declaration of neutrality ...")(*)
Lavalle en entrevista con Pinto [Chilean President] le manifestaba: "Pero asegurandole nuevamente por mi parte que esa declaracion de neutralidad que solicita del Peru, el Peru no debia, no podia, ni queria hacerla, y que veia con profundo pesar que las cosas se acercaban a un doloroso y sangriento termino. (transl.: "Lavalle said that Peru couldn't, shouldn't, and won't declare the neutrality and that he saw sadly that the situation came nearer to a painful and sanguinary end") [the interviews Pinto-Lavalle were end of March, beginnig of April)(*)
Y la guerra se hizo presente en el Pacifico Sur. ( Transl.: And the war came to the South Pacific)
Farcau's "Ten Cents War", page 42, regarding the options after the 14 February 1879:
Only once piece remained to fall into place to determine whether a real war would now occur or whether some sort of deal might yet be struck. This was the question of whether or not Peru would honor the 1873 “secret” treaty and come to Bolivia’s aid.
… After all, no blood had yet been shed, and there would still be a substantial swath of B. territory separating Peru from Chile…. And was it not likely that, without Peru’s support, Bolivia would simply see the wisdom in acceding to Chilean demands and avoiding the war altogether?.
...Lavalle [Peruvian Mediatior] departed Lima on 22 February, well before the Bolivian declaration of war, but nothing irreversible was to occur for some time, so he did have some freedom of manoever in Santiago. (Bold by Wikipedia)
W. Sater "Andean Tragedy", regarding the events after the 14 February 1879:
page 28: Only on 5 April did Santiago reciprocate, plunging South America's west coast into what became known as the War of the Pacific, a conflict that lasted until 1884.
Fredrick B. Pike, "The United States and the Andean Republics: Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador", we read (p. 128) that the occupation of Antofagasta was the "triggering" of the WotP. But in the next page he wrote "Mariano Ignacio Prado ... dispatched a mission to Santiago to seek a formula for preserving peace."
page 28 Chapter "La mediacion del Peru: La mision Lavalle": Es cierta, seguramente, la angustia del gobierno peruano para ganar tiempo; pero no sólo para que el país se preparara para la guerra, sino también, si era posible para aplazarla. (transl.: For sure, the efforts of the Peruvian government, not only to prepare the war but also to postpone it if possible)
page 45: Ambos convinieron en que la guerra era inminente. (transl.: both [Chilean Foreign Affairs Minister Domingo Santa Maria and Peruvian Mediatior Lavalle] agreed that the war was imminent)(*)
User:Darkness Shines you had previously cited these two sources (see below) to support your contention that the war actually began on Feb 14, 1879. Are there any additional sources you would like us to consider?
Pike Pike, Fredrick B. (1977). The United States and the Andean Republics: Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador. Harvard University Press. p. 128. ISBN978-0674923003. Chile broke off diplomatic relations and on February 14, 1879, landed troops that took possession of Antofagasta, thus triggering the War of the Pacific</ref
Henderson et al. Henderson, James D.; Delpar, Helen; Brungardt, Maurice Philip; Weldon, Richard N. (1999). A Reference Guide to Latin American History. M.E. Sharpe. p. 155. ISBN978-1563247446.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see that there are RS for the 14. and for other dates and situations. @Darkness Shines, do you agree that there are also RS for other dates or situations?. --Keysanger (talk)17:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Unless we have input from other editors soon. I may need to close this thread.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise
Look, I have given a compromise edit, that compromise was based on comments made during the RFC, and as current consensus is that my edit stands I would recommend KS either accept my compromise, or add a bit to it. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise is good. The RFC was closed as no consensus for either side of the dispute that includes existing and proposed content and sources. This is likely because there is also no clear consensus amongst the sources as to the exact beginning date of the war. Therefore I'd like to suggest the participants consider adding something like: "some sources identify the occupation of Antofagasta on Feb 14 1879 as the date the war began while other historians (accounts/sources/scholars etc--take your pick on wording) attribute the start of the war to later dates". Could something like this work?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
24 hour closing notice -- If I don't seem some further participation soon I'm going to close this case. It was filed 26 days ago and discussion has been open for 20 days. The participation has been largely one sided for the past 10 days and if it doesn't change soon I'm closing this case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Discussion died out, and no editors showed an interest in closing. The issues are too complex for DR/N. Suggest a more official venue. KJ Discuss?10:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The central issue in this dispute revolves around WP:BLP, and WP:RS when one side of a dispute (The media) is attacking the other side; who is claiming that the media is corrupt. One side of the issue (the media and some notable people) are claiming that the WHOLE issue is mysogony and harassment while the other is claiming that this is about journalism ethics. On the talk page several users are insisting that little to no mention of ethics should be included and that per the sources the whole thing should be about mysogony and sexual harassment etc. The other side is claiming that, while harassment has happened; the issue is about the reliability and COI of the sources used. The talk page is littered with threads discussing the issue with SOME editors becoming very uncivil (claims of mysogony on the part of editors) when neutrality is brought up.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have discussed the issue on the talk page and then attempted to start a RFC (which was quickly shut down before any non-involved editor could comment)
How do you think we can help?
Bringing the discussion to a board to make sure people keep a level head, preventing the talk page from being clogged up and also preventing users from dis-engaging from the discussion because they disagree
Summary of dispute by PseudoSomething
I think the big problem with this article is the common voice vs the media. It is a very weird problem, where there is no head of the GamerGate movement, but we can see the targets of the 'Media corruption' writing articles that label this as Misogyny. Sadly, some of the articles used are biased (which isn't a bad thing), but some of them also have authors who have thrown extreme insults at the Pro-GG side (The Time Author), or have funded someone in the middle of the controversy (The New Yorker Author), and a few other problematic articles. While the Pro-GG side also will have biased articles, there are plenty of sources(Forbes, Slate, and many other sites) that I and others have rounded up and presented that fully show what caused the movement, what the movement is looking for (or at least the main points, since there is no head of the movement), and what has happened. We also have tangible results, such as ethics policy changes with Defy Media (The Escapist Magazine Owners), Destructoid, and Kotaku, as well as TFYC (a game jam for women) getting fully funded, while many of the anti_GG articles focus on the narrative of one person, many times over. Yet, all of these sources are being ignored, as you can tell.
While many sources presented show the movement is about Journalism ethics and other things, many people on the talk page still push the Misogyny side. By this I mean people saying "We are playing right into their narrative", people who are passionate and say things like "The massive quantity of libel and rage that this movement has generated. GamerGate got a few minor sites to try pacify them, and screwed up a whole lot of women's lives for absolutely no reason. That's the effect of your movement", and others just telling anyone trying to present evidence and articles for the Pro-GG side to "Shut Up". I honestly believe that the article currently is portraying wrong information over GamerGate, and it will be an issue that will persist because of the amount of people pushing the 'Hatred of Women' position. I honestly don't know a good remedy, since the sources have been brought and nothing has changed. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I need to add onto this after a few days of mainly watching. There has been a major movement of people who are clearly Anti-GG who are doing whatever they can to stop changes that may be positive to GG that come from RS'es. Many RS'es are being ignored on the claim of 'Whitewashing' the article, while these sources come from sites like Forbes. Those people have also been doing everything they can to revert any change that they do not like (not because it does not fit), as to tailor the article to their side. While Titanium Dragon has been topic banned, his post shows exactly the people who are doing it. This is causing the article to become stagnant, even with new RS'es being found. To also add onto that, WP:CONTROVERSY relates to this article, and it does not follow "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant." PseudoSomething (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Masem
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
It's not an issue WP can deal with. When you have one side (the proGG side) that is fragmented without a clear voice, and where a few have opted to harass and attack other people, no reputable media is going to find sympathy in that. As such, all reliably-sourced articles on GamerGate (such as the New Yorker, the Washington Post, the Telegraph) all have to start that GG arose from what appears to be a misogyny-driven attack on specific game devs. That said, several also try to get into the more rational side of the proGG side, explaining their position of wanting journalistic integrity and other reasonable points of discussion. So the article should (and does, presently) go into the idea about these other reasons, that they've been boiling in the game fandom for years, and with the combination of the attacks on the game devs and the media response, is trying to be pushed out with a louder voice. The media just have not fully seen that voice, again due to the fractured nature of the proGG aspect and the fact that there are still people harassing the various targets of this. We can cover it, we cannot take the position that GG is 100% about misogynist harassment, but we also cannot hide that fact or bury it in the weaker claims about the other facets the proGG side want to cover. I beliee the article in its present lock-downed position attempts to make this argument properly without trying to skew what actually happen, irregardless how ugly it was. --MASEM (t) 06:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To add one bit here: there's two core aspects of what GG is about: the misogyny of a portion of the gaming community that turned to harassment (few question this), and the questions of journalism ethics based on the initial accusation that Quinn had a relationship with a journalist as to gain positive reviews. What the problem that we have is whether that question of journalism ethics started in earnest before the massive media attention on the subject, or as a result. Not to say that the supposed logs that Quinn has are true or valid, but they raise the question that some in the media consider that the ethics arguments arose to cover up for the mess that those engaging in harassing were doing; unfortunately the documentation of the events from the point of the first accusation against Quinn to where the media gained significant interest is mostly undocumented (outside of going to unusable source). It's clear the journalism ethics part is now a part of GG, but what a number of editors want is to put that first and foremost when there is no clear evidence that was the reason GG expanded as much as it did, while the misogyny and harassment side (and fallout from that) certainly did contribute. The best we can do is avoid getting into all specific allegations and discussing the analysis of why we got here sooner than later (in which the concerns of gamers can be brought up in a favorable debate light). --MASEM (t) 14:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Ryulong
Masem hits the nail on the head. It is not the fault of the users reported here that the sources for the subject only tell what Retartist (and other pro-GamerGate editors that have been disrupting the talk page) define as one side of the debate because that's all that's out there for the topic and the other point of view desired in the article cannot be found in what Wikipedia deems as reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Titanium Dragon: because it's a non-issue and NPOV was not brought up in this discussion. Now stop forum shopping because you have a hearing problem. Now as per Red Pen of Doom, I refuse to participate in this any urther.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by NorthBySouthBaranof
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This is quite simply an issue where the reliable sources are effectively unanimous in saying something. Given that fact, we are required by policy to present that as the predominant viewpoint in the encyclopedia. The above user, and others, have complained that literally every mainstream media source from Time to the Washington Post to NPR's Marketplace is somehow "biased" and unusable, and would have us use YouTube videos, dubious gaming blogs and Photoshopped screenshots instead. This we cannot do, obviously. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The below statement by TitaniumDragon is a perfect example of the crux of the issue; users are refusing to accept reliable sources and claiming that we must ignore what the reliable sources say because they are somehow "biased."
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Dispute resolution by the named parties will be useless as the flood of new SPAs will continue to come in who, like the filer, are oblivious (and hostile) to the understanding of WP:UNDUE that we need to present the subject as the mainstream reliable sources see it, not as gamergaters wish it to be perceived. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom11:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Masem is simply incorrect; I have repeatedly cited reliable sources which state otherwise. The Bright Side of News, Forbes, Digitimes, The Telegraph, and others which note that claims that the whole dispute about misogyny is, in fact, a straw man argument set forth by Zoe Quinn and her supporters, and that the actual issues are many and varied, but primarily have to do with gamers feeling bullied and insulted, and feeling that the gaming media is corrupt, and that they are being censored. Indeed, there is presently a DDOS attack going on against one of the participants, as well as an organized campaign of censorship by some of the journalists involved, including at Kotaku. One of the major mainstream articles written on the subject matter, in Time magazine, was written by someone who worked for Kotaku and had a conflict of interest, and indeed was targeted by the campaign because she was involved in both video games journalism and PR for video game developers, which is a conflict of interest for obvious reasons. The article in The New Yorker shows no signs of fact checking, and seems to be entirely reliant on a single, involved source - Zoe Quinn - for its information. And indeed, this is a common issue; there are articles which take a more detached view of it and there are articles which are advocating very strongly for Zoe Quinn and don't show much, if any, sign of fact checking, frequently repeating false or erroneous claims sourced to Quinn herself. Given the entire scandal started because of Zoe Quinn's press contacts, obviously there are some WP:RS issues here, as well as some issues with systemic bias; even still, though, there are plenty of articles which note the GamerGate supporters' point of view.
Zoe Quinn's point of view - and the harassment - are indeed major issues, and need to be discussed in the article. However, as-is, it does not present "the other side" (or really, sides) at all. It is unacceptably biased and gives a massive amount of space to Zoe Quinn's point of view and issues of harassment of Zoe Quinn and her supporters, when she and her supporters have been involved in the same, as noted in RSs, as well as the censorship and attempted censorship of the issue, which has again been noted in RSs. As there are a number of RSs which present a much more neutral point of view on the issue, we should be using those, and we need to avoid giving WP:UNDUE notice to Zoe Quinn - contrary to her claims, it isn't all about her, and several sites have actually changed their ethics policies as a result of the scandal.
Several of the users involved have referred to anyone who disagrees with them in a derogatory fashion, with Ryulong describing them as virgins, Tarc calling them misogynists, and TRPOD repeatedly closing discussions and claiming consensus and insulting other users with claims that they are POV pushing, as well as threatening users with bans in order to intimidate them, something they have been called on before by @Tom991:. This behavior is habitual in some cases. I just became aware of this because I was going through and looking for instances of past behavior for a potential ANI; I found this because, ironically, the notice had been deleted.
It is undeniable that the majority of the reliable sources have linked the attacks to misogyny, and the totality of them have covered the harassment angle. Still, we are not doing our best in the way we're using them to write the article, and the outcome is nothing to be proud of - certainly not the best we can achieve. There is lots of work to do to create an article that can be read by a reasonable reader from either side of the conflict and conclude that it's written in a fair way, but it will need the collaboration from everybody involved without constantly second-guessing the motives of editors at the other side.
Defenders of the Reliable Sources (that's DRS'ers for you) need to stop treating them as Gospel and recognize that they're written by fallible human beings, and thus everything written in them must be subject to scrutiny before -or even after- accepting them in the article; this means you must stop criticizing editors who want to put the references through such scrutiny. Those defending the GamerGate (GG'ers) side while trying in good faith to improve the article, must understand that Wikipedia is primarily a record of information available in mainstream sources which have been producing reliable content before the incident started, so it's natural that some angles and points of view get excluded, until people whose criteria we can trust adopt those points of view; this means that some aspects of the incident will be excluded because of our editorial line. (Those in bad faith can go read Encyclopedia Dramatica, where they will find a version covering all the "silenced facts" so it should be much more to their liking - or not?).
The idea that "we can't help having a biased article if all the reliable sources are biased" is, pardon me, bullshit. The problem is not merely for lack of sources, but how they're used to imply that what is included in the sources is WP:THE TRUTH. There's too much Truth-pushing at both sides, though fortunately there's also a few voices calling for keeping a level head. We know we shouldn't represent the views of external sources as ours, yet that's how many try to present them - and I mean people from both sides. We must all perform an exercise in self assessment and reflect whether we're engaging in constructive debate with proper mood and tone, including myself.
We proud ourselves that Wikipedia content represents the view from reliable sources have written without engaging in the controversies themselves. So let's write an article that represents the view from reliable sources but doesn't adopt them as Wikipedia's voice, but as the documentary record of what those sources have said, registered in a clinically detached tone. Diego (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Kaldari
Now that the GamerGate hordes have been kicked off of Reddit, 4chan, and everywhere else, they have descended on the one place that will take 6 months to decide to get rid of them: Wikipedia. Right now, there is a strong push by several tendentious SPAs and numerous anon IPs to completely whitewash the GamerGate article. They would like the harassment aspects to be downplayed or removed and the original (though discredited) ethics accusations put front and center. Unfortunately, the reliable sources do not support their POV, so instead they are claiming that the media itself is biased and should be largely ignored. Titanium Dragon and Retardist have been especially tendentious, opening thread after thread on the talk page with the same essential arguments. Titanium Dragon was one of the main original authors of the article and its main defender at AfD. At the time, the article was basically a Zoe Quinn assassination-piece. When the media started debunking the claims against Zoe Quinn and focusing on the harassment campaign, Titanium Dragon suddenly decided that recentism was an important policy and argued against including mention of harassment in the lead. Now that it is clear that the controversy is primarily about harassment, Titanium Dragon, Retartist, and others are determined to whitewash the article through exhaustive arguing, since the policies don't support their POV-pushing. Kaldari (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:GamerGate discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I'm presently working on an ANI in regards to a number of the users above, and am presently collecting sources. It appears that this behavior is habitual, not only here, but on other articles as well. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was collecting information for an ANI, which is how I came across this. I was not notified of this thing's existence because, for some strange reason, no one thought that I was involved in this. Why, I cannot say. Given the presence of this thing, I probably won't start an ANI, and will present the material here instead. I really have no understanding of this process. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, User:PseudoSomething, User:Masem, User:Ryulong, User:NorthBySouthBaranof, User:TheRedPenOfDoom, User:Diego Moya, and User:Kaldari. I am a volunteer here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I have read the talk page discussion and the individual summaries of dispute; since all users have made their comments, I will be opening this case. Before beginning the discussion, there are a couple of things to note. Firstly, volunteers here have no special powers and abilities to enforce a particular course of action. We are aiming to establish an agreeable consensus. Secondly, please respect all parties involved and assume good faith. Thirdly, the DR/N is not a place to discuss user conduct. Issues concerning user conduct, including accusations of pushing a particular POV, should be taken elsewhere. Please also be noted that User:Titanium Dragon has been indefinitely banned from the topic, and will not be able to participate in this discussion.
With this noted, let us move onto the discussion. I think there are two crux to this debate, the reliability of sources and due weight for the viewpoints. Feel free to point it out if I'm mistaken. Since due weight can only be judged after determining reliable sources, I wish to start with the first point. I am under the impression that the sources are being questioned about the second and third criterion of WP:SOURCE (Second being the reliability of the creator, the third being about the publisher of the work). Whether the sources themselves are WP:BIASED or not seems to be outside the scope of this discussion, as that will fall under due weight; the only question is whether the facts attributed to the sources are reliable and can be used. Please discuss below. KJ Discuss?04:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I state above, I am not participating in this sham perpetuated by the gamer diaspora from 4chan and Reddit. The claims of unreliability are not founded and are simply attempts to get the article to push a fringe view that does not appear in reliable sources because of the nature of the holders of that view point not being centralized. Good day.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand we have the obviously biased corporate media who are circling the wagons in a cowardly last-ditch effort to keep the thin veil of secrecy over their shameful traditions of back-scratching, nepotism, extortion, cronyism, bribery, and sexual favors. Sources like: The Washington Post, The Week, The Boston Globe, NPR Marketplace, The Telegraph, The Los Angeles Times, Business Insider, Wired, The Indian Express, The Independent, On the Media, Vox Media, Asian Age, The Herald Sun, Pacific Standard, PC Magazine, Time Magazine, and The New York Times.
On the other hand, we have the maverick grassroots media that are trying against all odds to get The Truth heard by the masses, and to shatter the wall of censorship and propaganda that has propped up the crumbling edifice of old-style journalism for too long. Sources like: Viral Global News, APGNation, whatculture.com, and MetalEater, along with countless blogs and discussion groups.
First of all, the approach followed to assessing the reliability of sources has been questionable. So far, only sources from the traditional press have been used to establish the relative importance of points of views, but using only those is not strictly a requirement of WP:RS policy. In particular, the requirement that sources keep a good record of fact-checking has been misapplied when it comes to opinions; all sources are reliable for statements about their own opinions, and several editors above have acknowledged that excluding those opinions creates a biased result. The solution should be easy - include prominent opinions pertaining to the pro-GamerGate side that can be deemed as reliably documenting that point of view, and attributed to their authors under WP:RSOPINION. This is not a call to remove the coverage of harassment and misogyny from their current prominent place in the article, but to expand the article in other directions that we know are also highly pertinent, using those sources that have covered it and we can verify ourselves as accurate. Diego (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question under discussion is what sources can be considered reliable. Please be noted that the inclusion of material on Wikipedia should be based on Verifiability, not truth. Following the definition of source per WP:SOURCE, the type, creator, and publisher all affects reliability. User:Kaldari, be noted that the intentions of the news sources appear to be irrelevant to this discussion; Wikipedia should be 'representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic (WP:NPOV).' My question right now is, are the so-called 'traditional sources' reliable? If not, why not? Not biased, or having other intentions, but just reliable. KJ Discuss?05:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see generalist news sources as reliable for establishing the point of view of people from gaming journalism and game developers. They are also reliable for identifying relevant actors from both sides of the divide, whose opinions are thus significant to be heard. So far, only the opinions from the anti-GamerGate people have been included under RS:OPINION; I'm proposing that we use the news sources to identify significant people from the pro-GamerGate side, to include the opinion of those vocal people as one of the points of view that must be covered under WP:NPOV. Don't forget that the nature of the statements in the article also affects the reliability of the sources used to support them. Opinions from people from the Pro side can and should included as reliable and significant for statements in the article that document their respective POVs. Diego (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kaldari said everything that is needed in the post just above and in their summary: "Now that the GamerGate hordes have been kicked off of Reddit, 4chan, and everywhere else, they have descended on the one place that will take 6 months to decide to get rid of them: Wikipedia." DRN should not be misused to provide yet another forum for the hordes to express their indignation. Johnuniq (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KJ. Basically what we have going on is a common voice vs a media controversy. The controversy started with a hashtag called #gamergate that has differing stories of how it came about. On the Gamergate side, we have sources such as Forbes, Slate, digitimes (A pure outsider source), Vox, Townhall, and Aljazeera, to name a few since I would want to site them all, who say that gamergate is about gamers wanting higher ethics and less corruption in gaming journalism, as well as a few stating they want less political push. Most of these sources are currently being shoved aside. The other side of the coin is the media saying that gamergate is a harrassment campaign focused on sexism and misogyny, mostly taking the work of one currently high profile person. For the side of the coin that is fighting for ethics, we can see actual results that are being brushed aside in in sentence, which is that the sites Polygon and Kotaku changed their ethics policies, as well as Defy Media (owners of the Espcaist) and Destructoid also reviewing and changing their policies.
Now, to focus on your statement of "whether the facts attributed to the sources are reliable and can be used", I believe many of the harassment/misogyny ones fall under the problem of taking the word of one currently high profile person with very little backing up her statements, instead of look at the results drive ethics and corruption side. To back up the extremely unreliable sources though, is to look at the Times article and the New Yorker Article. The Times writer wrote an article also on Gamasutra, and spit out a very nasty, curse filled insult at anyone who supported #gamergate. The New Yorker writer had been funding someone who was a journalist in the thick of the mess, and as soon as the article was published, he immediately hid his Patreon, to hide the fact. To add to this (and it is much more speculative than concrete), is that many gaming journalism sites would not cover the ethics and corruption story, only to focus on harassment, which was shown in some leaked emails from a gaming journalism email list. Then we have what companies own what, but that is all up in the air.
Now to add onto fact checking, which is what Diego touched on, is that again, many sources rely on one person's word for the whole issue. They do not take into account what is happening on twitter, prominent discussion forums, or results from the movement such as policy changes. These are all -easily- looked at, yet are not reported on to keep the issue skewed to one side. That is the big problem with this article, is that it is ignoring any pro-gamergate articles and only focusing on negative gamergate articles (look at the last edits, any negative ones are allowed, positive are always reverted), and the article in no way follows the very well written essay at WP:CONTROVERSY. (Forgive me if I reference anything I shouldn't, still learning some of the guidelines. Also, my sources a few days old, and I have not looked for newer sources, since I have tried to stay away until the DNR because of anxiety and work).PseudoSomething (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is, quite simply, your claim that there is something called "the common voice" and that this "common voice" is uniformly in favor of Gamergate is not supported by reliable sources. In fact, the reliable sources repeatedly note that this is an issue which has hotly divided people on both sides. You cannot make the claim that everyone who is not in mainstream media supports Gamergate. That's simply not credible and not sourced.
Twitter and discussion forums are not reliable sources and they are specifically and most clearly unacceptable for claims about living people. It is prohibited, by policy, to use them in Wikipedia articles relating to living people. Thusly, you may as well stop discussing them here because we cannot and will not use them. Dispute-resolution discussion cannot override black-letter policy.
Please immediately stop suggesting that Quinn is misrepresenting the harassment she has been subjected — it is indisputable, based on the overwhelming weight of reliable sources, that she has been the target of a major harassment campaign described variously in these reliable sources as "a cavalcade of threats," a "flood of threats," "reams of appalling threats and abuse online," "unprecedented levels of death threats and harassment," "nothing short of an online form of terrorism," "poisonous abuse," "a torrent of unfathomable outrage," "a horrible rain of rape threats," "a vicious and ugly online backlash," "a wave of rape and death threats," etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Below is a list of indisputably reliable secondary sources — not a single one of which is a video-games-only publishing outlet — that address this controversy in the context of harassment, culture wars and trolling:
The New York Times - This was written as part of a debate about the rise of geeks, it isn't written by any sort of regular columnist, and it is very clearly part of the opinion pages section.
The only retort to this list of sources has been that all of these reliable sources are unusably biased. Which is effectively a conspiracy theory, has no grounding in anything resembling Wikipedia policy and must be discarded outright as any sort of point of rational debate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute-resolution discussion cannot override black-letter policy. I don't want to address anything else in your comment right now, but I feel it appropriate to remind everybody that this is strictly *not true*, and we haveabundantpolicy establishing the contrary. If there's a place where policy can be bent, interpreted or, yes, plainly ignored is at dispute resolution. Rather than trying to push policy as it's written and trying to enforce it as given law, we'd better off using this forum to assess how each particular policy instructions are good ideas that may or may not apply here in order to improve the article, in a way that all may agree with even if they don't like it in full - i.e., to *build* consensus. Diego (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC) (And please don't bring up Wikipedia:LOCALCONSENSUS, because it's about something else entirely - Wikiprojects overriding style guidelines for large areas, and it couldn't invalidate WP:Ignore All Rules anyway). Diego (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't really see a controversy here about the reliability of the sources. User:PseudoSomething, you stated that the mainstream news sources did not do fact-checking, but that's impossible to know. The news sites could be intentionally skewing the issue or considering that the twitter and discussion on the blogs are not worth reporting on. Unless a reliable source actively assert this, the accusations are unfortunately WP:OR. In any case, I think that everyone could agree that mainstream news have reported both sides of the debate, even if this was to endorse a particular side. Consequently, is it agreeable that the article should mention both sides of the debate? Arguments on both sides can be incorporated into the article by attributing it to particular spokesperson (or group) for each respective side. (Putting aside due weight for now) Is this agreeable? KJ Discuss?10:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are effectively undisputed facts that are and should be presented in Wikipedia's voice — for example, the statement that the controversy centers around sexism and misogyny in video games. The list of sources I posted is for that exact reason — it demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources discuss the issue in the context of sexism and misogyny, and we cannot "set aside" due weight because due weight is the very center of this issue.
There is no one arguing that reliably-sourced arguments from the other side should be completely excluded. However, those arguments are a distinct minority in reliable sources, and due weight demands that we treat them as a minority viewpoint. The dispute stems from the claim that we should exclude or discount a large number of those reliable sources based on the nebulous and groundless claims of "bias," and that we should be required to accept a number of borderline or outright-unusable sources, many of which are being proposed to support derogatory claims about living people, which obviously violates the biographies of living persons policy.
And that is a baseline beyond which I will simply not go — if your idea here, Diego, is that this dispute resolution discussion is going to propose that we use unreliable sources to source claims about living people, then I will withdraw from this dispute resolution and it can be closed as moot, because that is quite literally unacceptable and I will have nothing further to do with such a proposal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of the dispute is that what is "reliable" and "unreliable" should be open to debate, because there are reasoned arguments to be made about the reliability of available sources, but the edit-warriors have been enforcing a particular interpretation mostly without engaging in such debate. For instance, there are points made by the less established but professional sources that are *not* affected by BLP, because they describe behaviors found in the gaming press as a whole. Are you going to engage in conversation about the core of the dispute as presented, or are you going to reinstate your position without ever listening to the arguments brought by the other side? Because if the latter, there's certainly no point in this exercise. Diego (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong but is reliability an attribute that, once given to a particular news outlet, applies with blanket range to every articles that are published by said outlet? Because I'm pretty sure WP:IRS says otherwise. Regarding news organizations, WP:IRS states: "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis". WP:IRS also states: "Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press. Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source, which has simply appeared in multiple venues.", so I think the sources given here should be put under scrutiny to assess reliability and detect republished content. 14.201.66.221 (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what qualifies for republished stories by Wikipedia definition. Word-for-word duplication of a previous source or presenting the same viewpoint with different wording? I see the former leaves room for a lot of outlets to circumvent reliability criteria if the sources echo the same viewpoint with partial sources that have been deemed unreliable, simply by writing them with different words (gaming the system, in a way). This is a known exploitation in political news reporting. Also considering that republished stories is only 1 factor in assessing reliability, and news stories are assessed on a case-by-case basis, there are a lot to scrutinize here. It's never a bad thing to be skeptical of your sources and refrain from jumping to conclusion. 14.201.66.221 (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The IP user raises a good point, though. The prevalence of a viewpoint in reliable sources is not determined merely by volume but by how many of those sources provide additional insight. That's why the WP:EVENT policy doesn't automatically accept as notable events that are covered by lots of newspapers; mere repetition of the same facts does not add weight to their preponderance. Now this is not strictly the case here, as various aspects of the incident have indeed been analyzed separately by the diverse sources, but that means it's quite likely that we over-emphasize some of the commonly repeated points and give them more weight that they deserve. I suspect a lot of that is going on in the article and talk page.
Also, WP:DUE is not the only content of the Neutrality policy regarding viewpoints. If a point is mainstream it means that it will be given more space within the article, but that doesn't imply that we should adopt that viewpoint as our own and report it in Wikipedia voice; in fact, in controversial topics we're expected to do exactly the opposite. This was much worse in the early days and has somewhat receded, but we still have to keep an eye on it. Diego (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More in clarification on NBSB's point: we have one side of the GG debate that may be held by thousands of gamers, but they lack any type of coherence that makes it clear what their position really is. (This is looking past the sources for the moment). There seems to be a cry for more journalism ethics, but what specifically? No one really has a good feel for the shape of what the gamers want in this debate, and that makes it very difficult for the media to report on this. Add in that some of this came from 4chan, which most mainstream press will shrug off as a group with any type of valid point. Add in that a small portion of that group turned to hostile tactics to try to make their point. There's a good reason why the mainstream press (not gaming sources) have failed to really cover that side of issue. I am aware that certain individuals have tried to step forward to explain what the gamers want but the initial problems with that side being tainted for media coverage may be preventing that side from being covered in any legitimate depth, in contrast to the gaming journalism side that have well documented what issues they've seen. Mainstream media has tried to reiterate some of the basic things that gamers seem to be concerned about, but they haven't given the same care as they have to the journalism side. --MASEM (t) 11:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually a few RS'es who state that the skew in media is fabricated. / Slate states "These articles share some traits in common besides their theses: They are unconvincing, lacking in hard evidence, and big on wishful thinking.", Techraptor had an interview with an indie developer that said "Trying to argue that gamers are generally misogynists or don’t want women playing games was so over the top, so absurd and so contrary to reality that people started to recognize them for what they are: Garden variety bullies." (There are a few more interviews with different people in the industry who state that), Digitimes states "However, this attempt to paint the angry gamers as a bunch of sexist, homophobic, racist males who were raging at being forced to "become politically correct" was rapidly rebuked by females, homosexuals, transsexuals and other minorities who all consider themselves gamers in the thousands using the Twitter hashtag #notyourshield.". While there isn't an article over it specifically, it has been stated and hinted at that much of those claims are false, or at least majorly overblown to create an enemy. To your point though, yes, we have more than enough RS'es explaining the Pro-GG side, we have enough to follow WP:CONTROVERSY, that writes to let the group explain themselves. At the moment, if you look at the article, much of it is 'Claims', 'He said she said', and other non-sourced assertions that reads more like an opinion piece than a wikipedia article. PseudoSomething (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What those three articles seem to be arguing is that the "gamers are dead" argument is wrong; the "gamers are dead" argument isn't the focus of our article, so I'm not sure what you mean it refutes.
Also not sure what you mean by "non-sourced assertion," because effectively everything in the article is sourced, and scrupulously so. We're even inline-sourcing everything in the lede even though The Devil's Advocate's rewrite omitted them per WP:LEDE. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just come back from a break- there seems to be a lot happening and ill need to catch up. But why in the article is there an excessively long section on "the misogyny"? seems a little excessive... Retartist (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest a change in style that would make it easier on the eyes without affecting its weight. I'll posit it in the article's talk page later to see if the idea gets traction. Diego (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to look at what has been removed because of BLP reasons. Most of them have been appropriate, but remember that it's possible to game this - using "removed per WP:BLP" as a trump card in a content dispute to remove information inconvenient to your point-of-view. I was surprised to see so many deletions even from the talk page, maybe I just don't know enough about the topic but not all of them seemed controversial or like serious allegations. The BLP bar should be lower on the talk page - so it's possible to discuss different sources and whether they comply with policies. Let's keep the bad sources at bay, but remember that we are detailing a controversy - not everything on the other side of the controversy can be thought as BLP-removable allegations. --Pudeo'22:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability of sources
Before continuing, let's talk about the reliability of the sources being used. There appears to be a consensus that published sources in the 'mainstream' media can be used to describe all the facts in this case. Unreliable sources are, well, unreliable and cannot be used to attribute assertions. Both sides have been described in the mainstream media, albeit with different due weight. Is this agreeable? If there is a consensus about the reliability of the sources, we will move on to discuss due weight in the article. Please answer in the scope of this question. KJ Discuss?22:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that doesn't make it an unreliable or unusable source. Many people have worked for different companies within the same industry during their careers. You have no reliable sources to support the notion that this tenuous connection makes her work biased in the first place.
Even if, for the sake of argument, she is biased, that does not render the source unusable in the least. Per the Reliable Sources guideline: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. ... When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. The piece in question is published in Time, an indisputably-reliable and longstanding newsmagazine with significant editorial controls and fact-checking in place. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have skipped the entire reliability assessment process outlined under WP:NEWSORG by jumping straight to the conclusion that those sources are immediately reliable. Past reputation of the outlet it's published on doesn't exempt a particular article from going through reliability assessment, once again, WP:NEWSORG states "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis". WP:NEWSORG also warns us that "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content" and "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors", both are something to keep in mind when assessing these sources, especially considering none of them put a disclaimer to distinguish the writer's opinions from the rest of the articles. These articles need to be assessed first to be deemed reliable. 14.201.66.221 (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, the bulk of the sources here are reliable (they have not misreported anything), though they may be biased in the coverage in giving more weight against the GG side than for it. That doesn't invalidate them. But per Kkj, the next hurdle is to ask what to do if they have somewhat weighted coverage. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we really be blindly sure these sources are reliable without some assessment though? I went through several of these sources, most of them raise some eyebrows in one way or another. The first one, the LA Times article showed some negligence to fact-check on the writer's side when referencing the open letter by Andreas Zecher [13]. Many of these names on that letter can be verified through a quick search that they are just interns, have no game credited in their resume, or are actually journalists like Chris Thursten (PC Gamer), Edwin Evans-Thirlwell (Official Xbox Magazine), etc... which disqualify them for "those who work for game powerhouses", as LA Times writer claimed. WP:NEWSORG states "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections", no correction has been made to the article as of this moment. The Week article made some wild, unsourced claims such as "The gamer Taliban are typical online trolls who organize themselves on anonymous message boards like 4chan and Reddit", which contains a factual incorrectness on first glance (Reddit requires a username to post, it's not an anonymous board), no correction to this has been made, which shows the writer's negligence to fact-check once again. Also, genetic fallacy holds no water. The writer went on to tie the same people into the abuse that Carolyn Petit received. I traced the source of that claim to a petition to fire Carolyn Petit that only has 69 signatures [14] and compared it to the actual response from Reddit community (referenced as the same people who made this abuse), which turned out to be very sympathetic to Carolyn Petit [15]. The top voted comment had 392 points (compared to 69 signatures) which shows overwhelming sympathy to this writer, contrary to the writer's claim. There were threads that presented more extreme and conflicting viewpoints on the subject matter [16][17][18][19], but were less populated, thus represented a minority voice. All of these showed the writer's negligence to fact-check his claims, and also shows why these sources should be put under scrutiny for reliability assessment.
I also took a quick glance at the Marketplace's piece. It's actually an interview, which by nature is opinionated and should be treated similarly to a written op-ed. WP:NEWSORG states "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.". These are only surface-level assessment, but I think this shows how necessary it is to be skeptical of your sources regardless of past reputation. 14.201.66.221 (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't disqualify all the sources, even some of those mentioned. The way we've been approaching the article is to keep it at a high, broad level in regards to the actual claims and accusations made after the fact (with the only highly specified part being the accusation about Quinn alledged professional improprity with Grayson, since that is both central to the whole thing, and discussed as a false claim by many sources). So they may have specifics off, but they aren't "wrong" about the overall thing at the level of detail we are interested at reporting at. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If only because we haven't gone through all sources, yes. The fact that these sources neglected to fact-check their story does discredit them on reliability scale, so to say we should be undoubtful of other details despite the proven negligence to fact-check from the writers that covered the story is irresponsible and reckless. In fact, negligence on fact-checking should have been the most alarming sign that indicates the sources' reliability. If we were to start at ground zero and build up a story from these articles, all we have would be some shaky allegations (the most common pattern being tying certain actions to a group of people, as we have seen with the Carolyn Petit example) and the writer's own interpretation of those allegations. And the tendency of editors to take these interpretations as facts is disturbing. They deserve a WP:INTEXT treatment at best. Per WP:CONTROVERSY, I just want fair coverage from both sides with accuracy, and the articles presented here have served little purpose in a WP:CONTROVERSY situation so far. 14.201.66.221 (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the problem: there is no way to cover both sides with the degree of accuracy you are looking for because no sources that are even remotely reliable have attempted to make any type of detailed evaluation of all the actions and the like; and us as Wikipedia editors that would be original research to make any attempt to assess what happened using forums, twitter posts, and the like. Reliable sources have struck hard at the initial allegation and then have glossed over much of everything else, and yes, that has left one side without as much in-depth coverage, but that is something we simply cannot fix. You have a media that, due to the actions of a few, are going to bias against that side even if they try to give both sides equal weight. So for all purposes, arguing about the reliability isn't going to make new sources appear, and we ourselves have opted to stay at a high enough level to not get into the nit-picky details where the facts may be off from those sources, so that any actual issues on reliability do not matter. To the point of the dispute, the question is when you have the mainstream media taking, even if inadvertently, a bias against one side of a POV argument, can you do anything about it? We've tried to incorporate as many statement about proGG that are buried in the least-biased articles to give that side its fair share, but we can't make up any more. --MASEM (t) 06:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We've used mainstream sources (specifically, those outside the VG realm) to frame what the situation is and what went down as to minimize the bias from the vg press about how the events actually played out, but to try to go into what the proGG side wants or their complaints as to balance what coverage the other side gets, we have to use vg sources that take the time to explore that side. Keep in mind that many of the mainstream sources themselves have a bit of bias (either we are talking articles from the video game entertainment desk/contributors, or that as fellow press people, they aren't going to take harassment lightly), but I am pretty confident that in terms of framing what the basic situation that happened in GG was, we have appropriately done it from mainstream sources. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do we define a "mainstream" source? I'm not exactly sure what we're going for there. Moreover, the number of "mainstream" sources which have gone into real depth about it is pretty small; Forbes, The Telegraph, The Washington Post, Slate, Time (which we probably can't use as the one which goes into depth about it was written by Leigh Alexander, who has a conflict of interest), Business Insider (which was mostly about the letter about harassment rather than the incident as a whole), The New Yorker (I have concerns about the reliability of the article, as well as its independence from Zoe Quinn), and... I'm not sure. I'm too tired right now, brain fried. But what would constitute a mainstream source? Is Vox a mainstream source? Digitimes, which is a newspaper from Taiwan which is supposedly pretty respectable? Some of these sources, such as Asian Age, I know nothing about, and then there's stuff like Bright Side of News and various other internet sites which aren't about video games, but aren't The New York Times, either.
I'm not sure how much we actually have to rely on video game sites here for reliable information, but I'm not sure how we define what is a "mainstream source". Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm sorry I wasn't able to be involved in this prior to this point in time. I have had my topic ban revoked, or, more accurately, it never existed in the first place, because it wasn't applied using the proper procedure and therefore shouldn't have been applied. The admin who noted this also went around making note on everyone's page of the discretionary ban policy as relates to BLP articles, so everyone should be on the same page as far as that goes now.
A few of the sources contain factual errors. This is a major issue, because when sources are making factually inaccurate claims about stuff we can verify, it indicates a lack of reliability in the article in general, and a lack of care in preparing the article. This is hardly confined to one source; a number of sources fail to check information, possibly out of laziness or possibly because they’re entirely reliant on a single source for their information. I suspect that the latter is the primary cause; a few articles seem to be entirely dependent on talking to a single source or a couple sources, which they then publish, which kind of makes them questionable as secondary sources in some cases as well - how much of The New Yorker's article on Zoe Quinn is sourced to Zoe Quinn? Hard to say.
Lack of attribution is another common issue in the news articles. I’ve seen a few articles which talk about the claims of conflict of interest re: Grayson being dismissed, but which fail to source it to Kotaku. The problem here is that if you end up with a company accused of having lax ethical standards saying "everything is fine, don't worry" obviously is something that people are going to want to know the source on. Failing to cite this properly is lazy at best.
I made some notes and classified some of the sources. I haven’t gone through all of them yet; I left off at the Wired article on the list. I’ll update this note as I come back, or if other folks go through and characterize them.
I’ll also note that North’s list omits a large number of non-video game sources, including Forbes, Bright Side of News, and Digitimes, though I suppose that’s because they didn’t agree with the characterization that it was about harassment/culture wars, which is what that list (supposedly) was. Incidentally, I think that’s really at least two different things, possibly more, given even in the “culture war” perspective we’ve got everything from people comparing gamers to the Taliban to comparing Anita Sarkeesian to Jack Thompson.
Anyway… on to the notes about sources. I tried to break them out by their stance; I stuck the two which I feel have the most issues (The New Yorker article and the one by Leigh Alexander) out in front, as well as noting a past issue of reliability as relates to Zoe Quinn. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of Individual Sources
Background Note: Past issues of reliability and Zoe Quinn
Something of a background note for the unaware, which is pertinent as it is part of the origins of this whole debacle as well as some past issues with reliability and single source stories.
The Escapist
In late 2013, The Escapist ran an article which repeated Zoe Quinn's claims that she had been harassed by members of WizardChan, an imageboard for depressed people.
The Escapist ended up altering the story a bit and adding a disclaimer to it after they revised their ethics standards as a direct result of the article; previously, they had simply repeated the claims of anyone who claimed to have been harassed, but now they require that any such article be better researched. As a result of the original article, the folks on WizardChan were themselves subjected to harassment by Zoe Quinn's supporters, and they were given no opportunity to defend themselves in the article, while the sole source of the claims was Zoe Quinn herself. The Escapist apologized for the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leigh Alexander writes for Kotaku, who is at the center of the controversy.
TechCrunch characterizes one of her tweets as implying "she will sink the career of anyone who brings up the topic." This sort of direct involvement with it is an indication of being involved with it beyond the level of a reporter/journalist, and this was not the only time she engaged with people in an aggressive manner over the subject matter on Twitter.
I don’t know that we can use this article as a reliable source for factual information beyond what Leigh Alexander thinks per WP:RS due to the conflict of interest issues. For the record, she characterized it as harassment borne out of culture war issues. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Quinn’s case, the fact that she was the subject of the attacks rather than the friend who wrote about her game reveals the true nature of much of the criticism: a pretense to make further harassment of women in the industry permissible.
However, in reality, this was not the case; not only was Grayson the target of attacks, but it rose to the point where his employer, Kotaku, was forced to issue an official response on the subject matter. Other men were also targeted by the GamerGate movement, and everyone has been subjected to harassment by both sides at this point as noted in the sources below.
Likewise, the article claims that the controversy dissipated after Quinn claimed that 4Chan was behind it all; given that 4Chan has actually banned discussion of the subject matter at various times, and that the controversy continued on well past this point, it is rather questionable.
I’m not super fond of this piece, and I have issues with its reliability; two factual errors is quite a few for a piece this short, and it seems to be very heavily dependent on Zoe Quinn as a source. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Primary Sources: 2
Marketplace
Questions raised over bullying in the gaming community is an interview with Jennifer Hale, and is thusly a primary source. Per WP:RS and WP:BLP, interviews are generally not suitable for saying anything other than what person X said save under very specific circumstances which have to do with academics, which Jennifer Hale is not. Hale notes that only a minority are involved in harassment, and speaks generally positively, rather than focusing on negativity, as well as expressing that harassment is a bad thing and stops people from speaking up.
Truth in Gaming: An Interview With The Fine Young Capitalists is exactly that, and being a primary source, has all of the attendant issues – as with Hale, TFYC are not a bunch of academics of repute, so all that can really be reported on here is what they had to say. TFYC describes their conflict with Zoe Quinn, as well as getting funded, issues of misogyny in gaming (and their perception that there is very little actual reporting on it, that it is all click-bait intended to enrage rather than insightful pieces intended to inform), ethics in games journalism, ect. This wasn’t on the list presented by North, but I thought I’d throw it in because we’re probably going to end up discussing a bunch of random sources here, and I might as well get it out of the way. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GamerGate as Politics/culture war: 5 clear, 3 questionable/minor
The article presents the harassment as being part of a culture war, noting Zoe Quinn as being irrelevant, an excuse to rail against “social justice warriors”. It pretty much presents everything as being hatred and vitriol targeted at these people over concerns about them ruining video games. Very nasty towards the GamerGaters.
#GamerGate – An Issue With Two Sides by Allum Bokhari describes GamerGate as being about politics, and describes the movement as a backlash against “culture warriors”. It makes note of the history of attacks by culture warriors, such as Jack Thompson, and compares the current crop of folks to the previous conservative attacks on gamers. It makes note of the censorship involved, as well as of harassment/death threats of people involved in reporting on the subject, as well as making note of tribalism and hypocrisy.
The GamerGate Question by Tadhg Kelly is basically the same thing, but much more sympathetic to the ones that Bokhari called the “culture warriors”, more or less depicting them as liberal crusaders as opposed to conservative humbugs. Makes note of the harassment, depicting it as being a result of the culture war, with the gamers directed it at the people involved because they are losing in some fashion. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pacific Standard
Online Harassment of Women Isn’t Just a Gamer Problem is about how… online harassment of women isn’t just a gamer problem, and talks about a wide variety of cases where women have been attacked online, and talks about how stereotyping groups is unfair, and talks about how it can “back people into a corner” and how it is unfair to stereotype gamers as being especially misogynistic. The article characterizes the #GamerGate hashtag as backlash against the stereotyping of gamers as misogynists and “competing victimization”. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Boston GlobeGaming’s Summer of Rage by Jesse Singal talks about GamerGate. It says it “surrounds” Zoe Quinn and describes the general background – blog post by angry ex listing his grievances about her and listing people she had slept with while they were together, gamers notice Grayson, Kotaku writer, and get angry and accuse her of using their relationship to garner positive coverage in the press. Dismisses allegations of corruption, and discusses harassment of Zoe Quinn (and later, Sarkeesian) that ensued, including death threats. Ends article discussing it in in terms of entrenched gamers worried about change in the video game industry. It suggests both that the gamers see it as about corruption and claims that it is really a backlash against the video game industry changing.
Factual note: Claims that Grayson only mentioned Quinn in one article. This is untrue. While it is true that he only ever mentioned her in one article for Kotaku, he had mentioned her in other articles for Rock Paper Shotgun in the past. Probably indicates that they used the Kotaku press briefing as a source, which noted that he had only ever written one article about Quinn for Kotaku, and mistakenly thought that it meant that he had only ever written one article about Quinn ever, when he had, in fact, worked for other outlets in the past. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability Question
Re/code
Rated S for Sexism: To Fix Misogynistic Games, We Need a Better Filter by Eric Johnson casts the harassment as being caused by the death of gamer culture. Cites absolutely no one from the GamerGate side and promotes the idea of some sort of group which would judge games on how progressive they were.
Not really sure how great this source is; on the one hand, it does actually have a very nice looking website and about page, and notes ethics policies and suchlike, as well as having its founder be someone who used to work for The Wall Street Journal. On the other hand, the site is very new, having been founded only this year, and lacks the notability necessary to earn a Wikipedia page; its page is a redirect to Walt Mossberg, and doing some Googling, they don’t seem to be widely cited by other news sources, or anyone, really. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion
Indian ExpressIt’s not a game by "express news service" (?) is an editorial. We generally avoid using editorials as reliable sources. Article makes note of harassment and depicts it as a culture war, doesn't really talk about corruption in journalism at all. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable due to extreme bias
The Week
How to stop misogynists from terrorizing the world of gamers by Ryan Cooper characterizes the GamerGate folks as "the gamer Taliban", which really doesn't encourage me as to the value of this source; they don’t appear to make any attempt at looking at “the other side” at all.
Articles which focus soley on harassment, aren't about conflict as a whole: 3 clear, 2 cursory
Vox
It's not just Jennifer Lawrence: women in pop culture are under attack by Todd VanDerWerff discusses the harassment of women in the media. It talks about the harassment of Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, and has a couple paragraphs about each, characterizing the attacks on them as being "fuelled by conspiracy theories". It was published prior to their other article on this subject matter, which goes into much more detail about the subject matter and presents both sides.
Factual issue: the article notes "After she left her home because of threats of extreme violence on Twitter, more than a few people accused her of making those threats up. (Why she would do this, exactly, was never explained. These "controversies" run on the same fuel as conspiracy theories.)" This is a bit problematic, as Google could have easily answered the question of why people were making these claims. A quick Google search found a number of articles from late August stating why people were suspicious, suggesting that the reporter here was just being lazy (or possibly didn’t want to mention the actual reasons cited).
That being said, I think their further article about this - posted several days later, on September 6th - may have been the result of them looking into it more; this article doesn't really talk about it much outside of the context of harassment as relates to another person, and doesn't really seem to be focusing on the subject so much as mentioning it as other examples. I noted the other Vox article further down the page in the "presents multiple perspectives" section. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About the letter against harassment
Business Insider
Game Developers Are Finally Stepping Up To Change Their Hate-Filled Industry by Karyne Levy makes brief note of the harassment of Quinn, Sarkeesian, and Fish in the context of harassment, also noting the Sony Oline Entertainment’s exectutive who got his plane diverted due to a false bomb threat. Doesn’t really talk about GamerGate as a whole, seems to be focused on the letter primarily. It also makes note of the counter-letter, about games journalists and developers not stereotyping gamers, which it noted as having more than 3,000 signatures (elsewhere, it notes that the other letter got “over 2,000”). Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perv shaming your bottom pincher is a low blow by Radhika Sanghani (the same writer who is noted below in the "shows both sides" section) talks about GamerGate in another article, which is about a woman posting personal details of a man who she claimed groped her bottom. The article makes note of harassment directed at Zoe Quinn over her sex life, but the mention is much shorter and is talking about the specific issue of Quinn being harassed, rather than the larger issue of GamerGate as a whole. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GamerGate as ethics in journalism vs something else: 5 clear, 1 opinion
PBS
Why video gamers are speaking out about sexual harassment discusses sexual harassment in gamer culture; it talks about GamerGate related stuff briefly, describing the harassment of Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, notes the GamerGate perspective that it is about ethics in game journalism, and cites Dan Golding of the Freeplay Independent Games Festival in Australia as being about males fearing becoming irrelevant in games culture. The rest of the article is about unrelated instances of sexual harassment. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a mixture of primary and secondary source material; we have some stuff which is directly attributed, as well as the journalist's notes on the matter.
This source notes that Zoe Quinn claims that it is misogyny and about attacking women, while it notes that the GamerGaters percieve it as being about journalistic integrity and ethics, as well as being angry about being attacked and criticized by gaming journalists websites. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post
With #GamerGate, the video-game industry’s growing pains go viral by Sarah Kaplan discusses the issues involved. It starts off noting harassment, but it also does go into the claims of GamerGate folks talking about uncritical promotion of games like Depression Quest.
Some minor factual issues here though which may be a little problematic: it notes that Quinn "didn't set out to be [at the center of it]", which is technically true but a little bit misleading, given her history of conflicts with folks. It also is unsure about who coined "GamerGate", noting Quinn's claim that it was all orchestrated by 4Chan but also noting that Adam Baldwin (who actually coined the hashtag) claimed credit. As this is something which can be empirically verified, it is a little troubling that they contrasted it with Quinn's claims.
#GamerGate: Here's why everybody in the video game world is fighting by Todd VanDerWerff talks about the harassment of and treatment of women in gaming, but also spends a great deal of time (actually, maybe more time) describing the GamerGate side of things, and talking about greater issues of games journalism and ethics in games journalism.
Herald SunInternet is too often a land of men with bad attitudes by Alice Clarke is about bad things happening to women on the internet, and uses Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian as examples, as well as the celebrity photo leak. The primary thrust of the article is that bad things happen to women on the internet at the hands of men, but it spends about a third of its length discussing GamerGate issues.
It quickly goes through the spark that set off GamerGate – Zoe Quinn’s ex posting about her cheating on him, gamers deciding that it was an example of corruption, and then the subsequent harassment and hacking. Also mentions the attacks and death threats on Anita Sarkeesian for criticizing games. Does not mention the word GamerGate, but is clearly discussing it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Starts off by saying part of the blame for the toxic gaming community is the press itself, and notes “games media has always had a dodgy relationship with ethics.” It also notes the “sheer distain” that the gaming media has shown for gamers, and notes their lack of credibility, and that their lack of credibility has compromised the ability for the media to report on and be trusted in any way, including about important social issues.
It notes that game marketing reinforces sexism, and that popular types of games draw in more men than women.
It notes that there are issues with sexism in the gaming community, but notes that games jouranalists writing about it has no credibility because they have no credibility in general due to the corruption of games journalism. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GamerGate is about unbiased/ethical journalism: 1 clear
Asian Age
Is it a fair game? by “Age Correspondant” mentions harassment of Sarkeesian and Quinn, and notes that she has little support in the community, noting that support for them was a “minority”. It made note of the criticism of Anita Sarkeesian, such as her misrepresenting the content depicted in the videos and her lack of reliability - for instance, noting that the section she showed from Watch Dogs was misleading, because the sequence was about shutting down a sex trafficking ring in the game – i.e. depicting it as wrong and evil. It notes the lack of uniqueness of gaming, and how it is no different from the rest of culture in terms of misogyny. It also makes note of the idea that games like Grand Theft Auto as exploiting “sex sells” and selling to “geeks” and “otaku”, depicting them as power fantasies of frequently bullied individuals, and that the games in question objectify everyone.
As has been noted repeatedly in a variety of venues, the claim that a source is "biased" does not preclude it from inclusion, nor do 3rd-degree conspiracy chains constitute a meaningful "conflict of interest." I decline to yet again rehash these claims in yet another venue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When the bias is about the specific topic being covered, that is a major issue, and indeed, RS policy notes that it is important to take care when using biased sources and to avoid letting their bias contaminate Wikipedia. We generally avoid citing sources like Breitbart and similarly highly biased sources about factual information because they're much more likely to engage in selective omission, creative interpretation to suit their point of view, or simply outright lie in some cases.
As for the idea that Leigh Alexander's conflict of interest is a 3rd degree conspiracy chain - if you work for someone, and you are reporting on a controversy your employer is directly involved in, that is a direct conflict of interest. As Leigh Alexander writes for Kotaku, that's a direct conflict of interest - she is writing about (one of her) employers, as well as writing about her coworkers, and defending their activities (as well as her own, for that matter). I'm sorry, but that's a very direct conflict of interest, as has been pointed out to you several times. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, a second administrator has assessed that TD's topic ban was not issued through the proper procedure and thus officially never happened. Diego (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through the claims made above, there's a lot of twisting the truth to try to claim a source is bad. Take the New Yorker piece; Quinn was obviously talking about Grayson who recieved no harassment (key word). The fact Kotaku was asked several times to clarify what happened, and the lack of any social media outrage at Grayson compared to Quinn, is what the New Yorker article is talking about. Of course, other males down the road got harassed (Fish for example) but that's not the point of the statement of the New Yorker. It is factually true: Grayson "escaped" from this scrutiny that Quinn got. So you're twisting the truth to get a result you want. (Mind you, others on the opposite side of the fence are doing the same to try to justify some inclusion). There is a proper middle ground here, all these sources are completely usable as long as we are aware that we should not be writing their biases into our article unless we are 100% clear it is an opinion. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that Time is usable per the conflict of interest noted; we can use it to cite Leigh Alexander's point of view, but we shouldn't be using it to source factual information because, again, conflict of interest.
As regards The New Yorker - the idea that Grayson was not the target of social media outrage is actually demonstrably false. A number of sources, including Kotaku itself, noted that Grayson had been targeted by complaints about conflict of interest and lack of professionality; a number of the earliest articles on the subject matter specifically note people complaining about Grayson. The complaints against Grayson subsided after Kotaku's official response on the matter, which was that there was no evidence of a conflict of interest from the material which was publicly available, and Grayson and Quinn both denied that any such issues existed. Quinn remained a target because of a number of issues - her involvement with The Fine Young Capitalists, ect.
This indicates a lack of fact checking. The New Yorker article seems to almost entirely rely on Zoe Quinn herself about the issue, and given that it makes several factual errors (and soley in Quinn's benefit), that seems all the more likely, which raises the question of whether it is actually really a secondary source at all, or merely mirroring Quinn's own opinions.
When an article makes multiple factual errors, especially about central facts on the issue (which the Grayson thing is, as their relationship was what sparked the whole conflagration, and was noted far more than the others both by RSs and on social media), that's generally a sign of poor fact checking, which means that it isn't a reliable source per WP:RS . Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The passage in question:
"In the past few weeks, a debate about journalistic ethics in video-game coverage has spilled onto social media. Tens of thousands of tweets were written, most of them accompanied by the hashtag #gamergate. Many Twitter users involved in the discussion called for more clarity and disclosure by writers about the relationships they have with independent creators. They want critics to abide by John Updike’s sound rule to never “accept for review a book you are … committed by friendship to like.” In Quinn’s case, the fact that she was the subject of the attacks rather than the friend who wrote about her game reveals the true nature of much of the criticism: a pretense to make further harassment of women in the industry permissible."
Now, in context this is about attacks on journalistic integrity. Given that Kotaku directly replied to accusations that their reporter, Grayson, had had a conflict of interest, this is just outright wrong; in this paragraph, it is talking about journalistic ethics, and attacks on the ethics of journalists. It claims that Quinn, not Grayson, was the target of the attacks. Both were targeted by accusations of improper behavior. That would mean that it is outright false. Given that Kotaku directly addressed attacks on Grayson's integrity, there's no way that they can claim that he wasn't attacked; that is factually incorrect, and was very easy to confirm. Indeed, a large number of RSs note the questioning of Grayson's integrity - many of them make direct note of it, and note that his employer found no evidence that he had violated their ethical standards at the time. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The allegations have been extreme. Nathan has been accused of in some way trading positive coverage of a developer for the opportunity to sleep with her, of failing to disclose that he was in a romantic relationship with a developer he had written about, and that he'd given said developer's game a favorable review."
Given that the Kotaku thing was posted well over two weeks prior to the article in The New Yorker, and that it is noted by a number of secondary sources, there's no way to claim that wasn't a factual error on the part of The New Yorker - a factual error which directly influenced their conclusion in the article, as they noted it as proof of it being an excuse to attack women. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DRN is self described as "an informal place to resolve small content disputes" [bold added]. This case was filed 19 days ago and was opened 14 days ago. During this period there has been approx. 15,000 words of summary and discussion. That does not seem to align with the stated purpose and parameters of this forum. In addition the case moderator User:Kkj11210 has not participated in 8 days. Unless the moderator returns, I will close this case within 24 to 48 hrs as unresolved and refer it to WP:MEDIATION. Before I do that are there any conclusions or partial resolutions that can be summarized and formalized before then, so that this extensive discussion will not have been in vain?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been participating here but I've been tracking the discussion, and I also agree that moderation of this case seems to be out of the scope of this forum. It's getting to a point in which every single source would be presented, analyzed, and decided on whether to be used or not. If participants wish to continue here, I am willing to continue mediation. KJ Discuss?22:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KJ and thanks for all your great work. I don't want to interfere, so if you feel you are making progress then please proceed or close the case, as you see fit. If I can be of any assistance please let me know. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@KJ:@Keithbob: So this needs to be addressed in mediation? I think it is pretty clear that there is a major dispute going on here, seeing as people are saying vastly different things about the subject matter; it isn't just a matter of differences in opinion, but it is a difference in perception of reality. We have people like me, who thinks that we aren't following the guidance of the RSs; we have people who are saying that the RSs are biased; we have people that are saying that the RSs are on their side, we're having edit wars over the addition of the NPOV/UNDUE tag to the article... I dunno. It is pretty clear that this is a problem, and it is equally clear that attempts at discussing this on the talk page have failed. We have people getting very angry. We've had folks from outside of Wikipedia doxx editors and other people yell at others on Twitter. People on both sides are yelling about conspiracies to censor them/whitewash things. It seems to me that this is the sort of thing that really needs to have some sort of formal process to deal with the whole mess, because it is clear at this point that the folks on the page don't even agree about what is happening in real life, much less where the article needs to go. The article is presently locked - again - due to editing disputes. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that mediation will resolve this conflict once and for all so that the edit warring on the article stops and we can move forward with improving Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am having a dispute with User:HCPUNXKID on the categorisation of Zone 5 Military Museum, Danang as Communist Propaganda. I have listed out numerous examples of the museum's POV captions on the Talk Page, however User:HCPUNXKID argues that the terminology on captions means nothing and that I have to give "serious proof" to justify the category.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
None
How do you think we can help?
Provide a view on the necessary proof/threshold for categorisation
Summary of dispute by HCPUNXKID
First I would like to thank User:Mztourist for taking the issue here. While he claims that the captions used in the museum (captions wich cannot be verified, as they arent visible in the photos he uploaded) use terminology like "mercenaries" or "puppet", that clearly aint a proof of "Communist propaganda", "Nationalist propaganda" or any other type, not compared with the other articles included in that category. Most if not all military museums in the world try to depreciate the enemy, via claims, terminology, etc...I'm still looking for a military museum in wich the own forces and their enemies are presented at the same level. Above all, I consider that its exaggerate to label a whole museum (or even all the museums in Vietnam, as he claimed in the article's talk page) as "Communist propaganda", moreover (as User:NorthBySouthBaranof points) when there is no external reliable source supporting that claim. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 15:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by NorthBySouthBaranof
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
As a previously-uninvolved editor, I think this is a pretty simple issue. If we don't have a reliable source for the contentious and indisputably-negative statement that something is "Communist propaganda," we can't label something with that statement. WP:V is pretty clear, and without a source, the label is textbook original research. Moreover, even if one source calls it "Communist propaganda," that does not necessarily constitute a consensus of sources that it is "Communist propaganda." Before we label something in such a negative fashion, we need to take a serious look at what the reliable sources really say about the museum. A dearth of sources does not and cannot justify one editor categorizing the article based on their personal opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Cannolis
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Pretty much agree with NorthBySouthBaranof. If the captions provided by Mztourist are real, they are pretty wonky, but it's not our place to call them or the museum anything, we go by what RS say. Cannolis (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Zone 5 Military Museum, Danang discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
24-hour closing notice: An additional couple of editors have joined in at the talk page discussion and will need to be listed here if this is to proceed, but it would appear to me that one of the primary parties is not going to join in here and that the discussion is moving along at the talk page. I propose to close this without prejudice to refiling unless HCPUNXKID chooses to give a summary of dispute by 15:00 UTC on 7 Oct 2014; if that occurs, then the other participants in the dispute will also need to be listed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator) Withdrawn. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TransporterMan, I wasn't even aware that other people had joined this discussion. I am more than happy to upload photos of the relevant captions as it appears that HCPUNXKID is questioning their content. It would also be useful to have a Vietnamese speaker, such as user Nguyễn Quốc Việt translate the Vietnamese captions that I also photographed. In relation to Cannolis's comments, the captions are more than "wonky" they show a persistent bias that amounts to propaganda. If the category is disallowed then this bias needs to be conveyed in the article.Mztourist (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to find a reliable source which states that they are biased. Otherwise, you are inserting nothing more than your personal opinion in the encyclopedia, which is not permitted. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for editors to express their opinions about things. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided quotes of the captions used in the museum on the talk page which I believe show a persistent bias that amounts to propaganda. As previously advised there are no RS on this museum, so I believe that it is appropriate that editors form a view. Mztourist (talk) 10:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
– New discussion.