Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

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

See /RFC1

RFC closing statement: "There is a general feeling here that the article does have a slight bias, however, the point is also made that this seems to reflect the reliable sources available."

Also from the closing statement: "Here, the key is UNDUE and NPOV, which may mean we have to use some less reliable sources, but all for the benefit of the article in the longer term." Rhoark (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sanctions enforcement

All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to General sanctions

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement

Recasting the lede second sentence

New wording, and note that I've split it into two sentences because it seemed natural to break out the culture war aspect into its own sentence. Nearly all media commentary refers to the disgusting attacks. Quite a lot of it relates that to Kulturkampf. I've also taken note of potential confusion about which "commentators" we're talking about.

While many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism, the great majority of media commentary has focused on the attacks conducted under the #gamergate hashtag, which have been broadly condemned as sexist and misogynistic. Gamergate is often seen as a manifestation of a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture. [1]

Being bold in the draft. Have at it. --TS 20:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

After the word "misogynistic" we need to add the phrase "although the only data analysis published in reliable sources states that the overwhelming majority of tweets are "undetermined" and fail to meet the algorithm's criteria for negative." Bramble window (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Well that is not going to happen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Far too much to worry about even if we could say that for the lede. Conciseness in the lede is very important and that's sidetracking the issue. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Any mention of the twitter analysis in the lede should reflect the usage in the body. Wherever the matter is treated in the body, whether or not it is mentioned in the lede, the methodological failure to classify most tweets should be given equal weight to the conclusions that are drawn from it. If that caveat is not included, the study should not be cited at all. Rhoark (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I think TS's suggestion is an improvement, his second sentence is still putting too much certainty into WP's voice. I suggest changing it to, "Commentators in the media see it as a manifestation of a culture war against women and diversification of gaming culture." Later in the intro I think we can add a sentence along the lines of what Bramble suggests above. Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No we are NOT going to add content that contradicts the essence of the source itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Each of us gets a vote, RedPen, and each of our votes is equal to the others. Please relax and enjoy the process. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you've been around long enough to know that we don't vote. Original research doesn't get a vote. --TS 02:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

TS, your opinion on how to interpret and use the source counts as one opinion. So does mine. We don't spend time here trying to disenfranchise each other's opinions, because that it contrary to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. We give our opinions and the consensus is what goes into the article. About the only exception is BLP concern. Cla68 (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone's opinion who says that the source [2] which states "Is GamerGate About Media Ethics or Harassing Women? Harassment, the Data Shows" should be used to state otherwise is an opinion that will be discounted as being irrelevant. WP:V. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The last sentence is clearly implied as a "opinion of the masses" and not as a fact (using "is seen as..." language to defer any implication it is WP's voice stating that. I'm not worried about it. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Reads fine to me. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The final sentence is intended to indicate a sizable fraction of informed media opinion. If there's a better way to say that commentators often see this event as a symptom of Kulturkumpf, please edit the draft. --TS 02:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Identifying material that has fallen to the spell of Recentism

Identifying material that's been given too much weight because it loomed larger at an earlier stage can be tricky, but I think it may be worth trying to get consensus on the bits that are now starting to look "too fat" or that have coverage but don't really seem to go anywhere.

I don't expect we'd all agree on exactly what counts, but I think we might at first look at what criteria to use. Did the inconclusive nature of the GameJournoPros affair count against our quite detailed coverage? It's hardly ever mentioned outside Breitbart and one or two other fringe political websites. Do we spend too much space covering the endless and largely uniform opinions of the pundits? Do the Fine Young Capitalists merit so much space, given that their role was quite incidental? I'm inclined to support all three suggestions, but I'd like to see what other editors' opinions on this are. -TS 04:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've trimmed some of the punditry quotes around the "ethics" issue, as there's only so many ways to say "there is no ethics issue." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I carried on trimming. Seems to be a better read now, at least. We may soon be able to remove the quote farm tag. --TS 08:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd be all for removing The Fine Young Capitalists entirely, or paring it down to a single sentence at most, since they seem to just be one incidental group that attached themselves to this and not particularly significant in the scope of the larger controversy. --Aquillion (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The Fine Young Capitalists has it's own page, pretty much entirely dedicated to Gamergate related material. Either that should go or the mentions here should consist of a single sentence and a link. Artw (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't help but think the TFYC incident is worth mentioning, since the actions alleged to have been taken by Quinn in regards to the Game Jam, were one of the factors that caused gamers under the "Gamergate" movement to at best be angry with Quinn, and at worst, target her for harassment. As it is, the current edit is a touch lacking, though it would be hard to really say anything without seeming biased one way or the other, or too wordy. One possible solution might be to say "Early on in the movement (Redacted)" Granted someone would need to write it better than me, but the idea is to give just a general idea of what is reported as happening, and how it relates to Gamergate as a whole. Basically, leaving this out leaves out some of the motivating factors to the movement, or at least one of the early ones. Kitsunedawn (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Those allegations are non-starters and have no place in the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Since this is an article about viewpoints, positions and motivations of significant minority viewpoints are owed adequate space to maintain a neutral point of view. This particular matter may or may not be due a portion of the space given to the minority viewpoint, but that is a determination that must be made from within rather than from without. Rhoark (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I've redacted them as unsupported and unsourced claims of wrongdoing, which have no place in the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Should this article be un-fully protected?

I don't know, but was it a good idea to remove this article from full protection while an ArbCom case involving the topic and editors involved is ongoing? I feel this will only lead to even more strife, just after the evidence collection period of the case is supposed to have ended. Weedwacker (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi is fine as long as all respect the sanctions and expected editing behavior. The brief stint of EW earlier stopped fast so that's a good sign semi works. --MASEM (t) 22:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I was won over by the stability of the draft page. Should edit-warring resume (I didn't notice it as it was happening some hours ago) or should we see a resumption of extensive vandalism, I will take it as a misunderstanding by the people who said "it's ready for unprotection" and put back the protection that I removed. Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There's an ARBCOM case about this and documented extra-Wiki organization to push POVs here. It needs protection at least until ARBCOM is done. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration and external campaigns have been experienced routinely throughout Wikipedia's history. We don't lock down articles unless there is an active and demonstrable issue on the wiki, and even then we remove full protection as soon as possible. --TS 23:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, many assumed the draft page would not replace the main article while an ArbCom case about it was ongoing. Weedwacker (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I added the draft, but only in the sense of reverting it and putting it back. See "Don't we need to do a history merge, not just a c&p?" up above: all I did was ensuring proper attribution for what someone else had put in. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to discuss unprotecting the talk page first, before moving onto considering the actual article?Bosstopher (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You're obviously not referring to this talk page, but I thought this was a discussion of this article. Which talk page were you referring to? I'm confused. --TS 07:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm also confused about what he is referring to. Weedwacker (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The lede is overlong and full of repetition. Discuss.

"Wintergreen determined the outcome by throwing all communications from General Peckem into the wastebasket. He found them too prolix. General Dreedle's views, expressed in less pretentious literary style, pleased ex-PFC Wintergreen and were sped along by him in zealous observance of regulations. General Dreedle was victorious by default..." -Catch-22, Joseph Heller.

Let's imagine the reader is Ex-P.F.C. Wintergreen. The lede should be written by General Dreedle; General Peckem can collaborate on the finer details in the body of the article.

I suggest we work out carefully what needs to be in the lede. There are some themes that appear there several times when once should be enough. The main body of the article should contain elaboration of themes, the lede should just quickly summarise them. --TS 23:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Arguably, you could keep the current first and fourth paragraph and it would be much easier to read, as to get into all the details of the harassment, the claimed ethics, the criticims of GG, etc. is bulking it up. 1st para is a strong overview, 4th is a good understand why we are here. --MASEM (t) 00:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Weedwacker (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Support trim to only paragraphs 1 and 4 of the lead. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the second paragraph is absolutely essential (it provides a broad overview of the key points of the article), but the third one is definitely unnecessary and mostly restates stuff covered elsewhere in the lead. In fact, I think only the current first and second paragraphs are really needed -- they cover the core facts and history of the controversy. The third and fourth paragraphs mostly go off on tangents about analyzing it from various perspectives, which isn't necessary for the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really: the phrase "primarily targeting women in the video game industry" in the first sentence summarizes that well, if we need to add an adjective to describe the nature of the harassment that drew public attention to GG, then that's fine. --MASEM (t) 04:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The lead needs to reflect the article; and the article spends a huge amount of text summarizing the overarching history and focus of Gamergate. That history, in turn, is primarily about how they came to focus on Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and Brianna Wu, and "primarily targeting women in the video game industry" is not a remotely adequate symmetrization of that history. I would say that overall the second paragraph of the lead is the most important and most well-written part, and it is the one part that absolutely must remain in some form in any revision. My feeling (and the thesis of at least large portions of the article) is that the second paragraph describes the heart of the GamerGate controversy and the core of the events that the rest of the article approaches from various angles; the other parts just summarize less-important editorializing by various talking heads and a variety of sub-controversies that grew out of those attacks. --Aquillion (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"primarily targeting women in the video game industry, including Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and Brianna Wu". starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Insufficient. The origins of the controversy make up much of the core article, and deserve the full paragraph they have now. I reiterate my opposition to any changes that would remove the second paragraph. The third paragraph, I agree, is mostly redundant, but the history-focused second paragraph is exemplary and I see no reason for it to require significant changes, let alone to remove it entirely or to replace it with one sentence. --Aquillion (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we're making progress! Thanks everybody. Keep the ideas flowing. --TS 07:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I like this idea (of cutting the second and third paragraph) although I feel like there is one line that might be of use from the third paragraph, specifically how it defines the "culture war" as a "culture war against the diversification of video game demographic". If we cut the second and third paragraph, can we slightly rewrite the first paragraph to state in the last line:

"...a manifestation of a culture war against the diversification of video game demographics and gaming culture." Ries42 (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Further, the last paragraph could be rewritten slightly to take out some repetition as such:

The events of Gamergate are widely attributed to perceived changes or threats to the gamer identity as a result of the maturation of the gaming industry. Recognition as an art form has led to social criticism and commentary, prompting opposition from traditional adherents to the gamer identity, or hardcore gamers. The resulting clash has led to conflict and harassment.

I realize after doing it that is a much larger rewrite than I intended, but I think it still keeps the same information in a more formal tone. But I am willing to scrap that entirely if no one agrees. Ries42 (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's some great work — much more concise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Implementing Ries42's concise version of the fourth paragraph - I don't see why anyone would oppose. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, then here's a proposal for the full lede:

The Gamergate controversy, centering on a debate about sexism in video game culture, came to public attention in August 2014, because of ongoing harassment and threats, primarily targeting women in the video game industry. Many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism, but media commentary has primarily focused on the attacks by Gamergate supporters, which have been broadly condemned as sexist and misogynistic. Gamergate is often seen as a manifestation of a culture war against the diversification of video game demographics and gaming culture..

The events of Gamergate are widely attributed to perceived changes or threats to the gamer identity as a result of the maturation of the gaming industry. Recognition as an art form has led to social criticism and commentary, prompting opposition from traditional adherents to the gamer identity, or hardcore gamers. The resulting clash has led to conflict and harassment.

Its not perfect, but I think we can get a consensus on this and move forward with nitpicking specifics afterwords. As it is such a big change, I think we should have a consensus before putting it on the article itself, and at the very least its a significant improvement, IMO. Ries42 (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That is drastically better than the lede as it stands, but still stands to be improved. The first sentence is a bit of a run-on, and the second paragraph is redundant with the end of the first paragraph. More importantly, it still employs some weasel language. I suggest something like this:

The Gamergate controversy is an interrelated group of debates about ethics and sexism in the video game industry. In August 2014, allegations against game developer Zoe Quinn by her former boyfriend Eroj Gjoni incited online sexual harassment directed at Quinn and aroused suspicion of unethical conduct among Quinn's associates in the game development and game journalism industries. Subsequently, online commentators have roundly criticized incidents of sexual harassment, while others have engaged in activism to expose and correct the alleged journalistic misconduct. Debate is ongoing as to what degree the activists for journalistic ethics bear culpability for the simultaneous sexual harassment, but media commentary has focused almost exclusively on the occurrences of harassment and threats. These events play into a preexisting and ongoing cultural debate about representations of women and minorities in the video game industry. Rhoark (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

outside of the gamergate echo chamber, the only "controversy" is the harassment. the "but ethics" are peripheral smokescreen at best. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Before making a statement like that, educate yourself on what activities GamerGate is actually devoting tremendous man-hours to http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/12/gamergate-ftc-info-updates-will-address-affiliate-links-native-ads/ compared to some salacious but isolated death threats. We don't need to agree on what GamerGate "really is", but the lede should avoid drawing a conclusion on that matter either. Rhoark (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

nobody cares what gamergaters are doing except for their horrendous viscous harassment. look at the sources. Our article is NOT about the self proclaimed "consumer movement" - its about the controversy. As a "consumer movement" its completely non notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

We as a neutral source have to care, in as far as it is documented in reliable sources. There's not much we can, but there are definitely things that are available. We can't plug our ears and go "la la la not listening" to anything said by GG if a reliable source describes it (even if then going on to ridicule/criticize it) --MASEM (t) 19:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"We" as a as a neutral source only care about what the reliable sources care about. and the jury is fully in on that. they do not care a horses ass about GG self proclaimed crusade whether it be "but ethics" or "consumer revolt". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a controversy, we, to be neutral, need to cover both sides, even if one side has been otherwise mostly ignored. If it was impossible to document one side with reliable sources, that would be one thing (this happens all the time in video game articles where user reviews are vastly different from published ones - we simply can't use SPS sources to support the user side). But we can document, a small degree, the GG supporters sides, and thus our responsibility as a neutral party is to include that documentation in proportion (read: very little) relative to the rest of the sources. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BALASPS No, we dont need to create some false balance. We cover it as the sources do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:IMPARTIAL "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." There are respectable sources for people believing they are activists for ethics and not misogyny. Wikipedia can and should note that most media disagrees, but can't go so far as to say or imply which is right. Rhoark (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing violating WP:IMPARTIAL in stating that GG is noted primarily for the harassment it has done when all of the reliable sources focus primarily on the harassment that it has done. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

No, of course there isn't an impartiality problem to say that GG is noted primarily for harassment. But it is a violation to act like GG has no stated claims of ethics or is a movement, when we do have reliable sources that make it clear that the group has self-identified these aspects. To ignore that under the claim "but the rest of the press ignores them" is not impartial for WP. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

We cover the "but ethics" as much or more than the reliable sources do. However, we should not give them excessive credence in the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That I agree, we can't flip this around to make it about that issue. The current language in the first paragraph, being half a sentence long, is about right. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Be careful what you link to. There was defamatory content in the forum that you linked to. — Strongjam (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no defamatory content on the linked page. Rhoark (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is. Search for "Wu". Please don't re-add, or if possible find a way to link only to the text you want to highlight. — Strongjam (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a stretch to call any of that defamatory, but I replaced the link with one that summarizes the main content Rhoark (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

semi arbitary break

@Rhoark: I see where you're going with this, and there are some points that I do think are good, but I don't think it reflects what the article states at this time, or gives due weight to the reliable sources that are within. Until and unless the article itself more accurately follows how you summarize it, I do not believe your attempt is an appropriate lede. That being said... perhaps something like this might be more palatable. Label it proposal B.

The Gamergate controversy surrounds a self-described movement and hashtag campaign originating in August 2014 following allegations made by Erin Gjoni against his former girlfriend, indie developer Zoe Quinn. These allegations lead to false accusations of Quinn using inappropriate personal connections to gain media exposure, and sparked a long simmering debate of sexism and ethics in video game culture.

Supporters of the Gamergate movement argue that the movement is primarily concerned with ethical issues in video game journalism; however, widespread media coverage condemns the movement for encouraging misogynistic harassment and threats targeting prominent female developers and critics such as Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu. Commentators view the conflict as rooted in a culture war against the diversification and maturation of video game demographics, gaming culture, and perceived changes to the gamer identity. The resulting clash has led to significant conflict and harassment.

I think that hits all the highlights. Ries42 (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, that may be the most balanced possible lede that could be said to reflect the article such as it is. Rhoark (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's unhelpful to attempt and conflate two major changes at once, particularly given the extensive discussions and consensus-gathering which underpinned the development of the new lead paragraph just two weeks ago. Downplaying the fact that the controversy is centered around sexism in video gaming is just not going to fly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

None of the changes I see suggested here seem particularly viable to me; they make the lead less reflective of the article, and nearly ignore huge sections of the article. I will reiterate that I feel that the current second paragraph is excellent as-is and provides a vital overview of the core background; I am completely opposed to removing it or significantly reducing its size. To me, keeping the following in some form (with at best minor tweaks) should be seen as a given:

The Gamergate controversy, centering on a debate about sexism in video game culture, came to public attention beginning in August 2014, because of ongoing harassment and threats, primarily targeting women in the video game industry. Many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism, but media commentary has primarily focused on the attacks by Gamergate supporters, which have been broadly condemned as sexist and misogynistic. Gamergate is often seen as a manifestation of a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture.

The controversy began after indie game developer Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleged that Quinn had a romantic relationship with Nathan Grayson, a journalist for the video game news site Kotaku. Quinn was then subjected to severe misogynistic harassment, including false accusations that the relationship had led to positive coverage of Quinn's game. A number of gaming industry members supportive of Quinn were also subjected to harassment, threats of violence, and the malicious broadcasting of personally identifiable information about them (doxing); some of them fled their homes. The targets were mostly women, and included Quinn, feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian, and indie game developer Brianna Wu. The harassment came from social media users, particularly those from 4chan, 8chan and Reddit using the #gamergate hashtag. These attacks often include anti-feminist and misogynistic rhetoric, and have heightened discussion of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community.

This description, as noted above, was the result of extensive discussion and consensus-building just two weeks ago, and I think that it is one of the most well-written and balanced parts of the article. The third and fourth paragraphs can go (they're fairly vague and redundant with the first two), but the second paragraph is utterly essential, and I haven't seen any actual arguments for cutting it at all. Likewise, I do not see any particular need to significantly revise the first paragraph, which is more or less excellent as it is. However, I think we have a general consensus that the third paragraph can go...? --Aquillion (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there's significant repetition there. How about we collapse the third and fourth paragraphs into this:

The events of Gamergate are widely attributed to perceived changes or threats to the gamer identity as a result of the maturation of the gaming industry. Recognition of video games as an art form led to social criticism and commentary, prompting opposition from traditional adherents to the gamer identity, or hardcore gamers. The movement's unwillingness to move beyond its unorganized, leaderless and anonymous roots has been criticized as non-constructive, and has resulted in an inability to control its behavior and messaging—while some supporters condemn harassment, others continue to harass their opponents. The issue of the movement's unorganized, leaderless, anonymous nature is repeated in enough reliable sources to be lede-worthy; it's frequently cited as a reason why the movement hasn't been able to control harassment conducted under its name, or even to clearly define what it stands for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This is still trying to say too much without citations. It should be a single, brief paragraph in the vein of what I or Ries42 suggested. The feeling that the lede needs to be much more is driven by the lack of directness in the first sections of the article proper. It's drowning in he-said-she-said, tertiary cultural background, and full quotes of opinions from every journalist under the sun. Its deficiencies cannot be compensated for by an over-ambitious lede trying to explain what it all really means. Rhoark (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

An article's lead doesn't require citations, since it is supposed to reflect the article; the things it references are cited down there. Regardless, I'm still not seeing any arguments in favor of removing the second paragraph -- have we agreed that it needs to stay? It is, as far as I can tell, an uncontentious history of the core parts of the article's subject. I want to get this settled first, since I think that it's the most clear-cut part of the discussion; we can discuss how we want to revise (or remove) the third and fourth paragraphs later, but I want to be sure we're all in agreement that the second / 'history' paragraph needs to stay. --Aquillion (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the only change I would suggest is to change the wording in one part to say incited online sexual harassment directed at Quinn and aroused suspicion of unethical conduct among Quinn and her associates in the game development and game journalism industries.

Exactly, a lede does not require and should not have citations. That's why it should be brief, general, and cautious in its claims. Rhoark (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

GameJournoPros debunked

The Columbia Journalism Review reporter states that the claims have been debunked. It doesn't really matter where any hyperlink goes to - the reporter is making the statement that they have been debunked. The CJR is an unimpeachable reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

But what do the vast majority of sources say? Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That CJR is wrong. Weedwacker (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty bold claim to make. Every report on the supposed "collusion" that I've seen has been firm that the issue is a complete non-starter. Parabolist (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If you could supply some mainstream reliable sources for that statement, it would be helpful. And I don't mean RealGamerNewz.com. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Random editors don't get to second-guess reliable sources, sorry. There's always the noticeboard (WP:RSN) if someone feels they have a case to make. Tarc (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the reliability of ArsTechnica generally? Or of Kyle Orland? Isn't he accused of creating the GameJournoPro's list? If he is being accused of creating it, can we trust him to reliably report about debunking it? Ries42 (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You've misread the page. Kyle Orland's ArsTechnia piece is referenced to source his statement AS creator of the list, and is not among the four sources referenced as debunking the claims of collusion. Parabolist (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

4 Sources? I thought we were talking about one source, Chris Ip's CJR article. What are the other 3? Ries42 (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Most commentators viewed the list not as evidence of collusion, but as a platform for professional debate and discussion.[93][1][77][94]" Which cites the CJR piece, alongside ones from The Verge, The Week, and Vox. None of which written by members of the mailing list, as far as I know. Parabolist (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The other three that were added upon request. I can find even more if you really want, but that would seem like piling on citations for their own sake. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

North, please do find more sources which are not affiliated to those being accused on the list. CJR and Week are fine. Polygon is on the GJP list, and Polygon is owned by Vox, which also owns Verge. They have a vested interest in decrying the list. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope, that dog doesn't hunt, and your "vested interest" claim is ridiculous on its face. The sources stand, support the statement and that's pretty much the end of it. The existence of shared parent ownership among three different media properties does not permit you to discard two of them by claiming tenuous, Alex Jones-level conspiracy links between their positions. Moreover, Polygon was not "on" the list - certain staffers were, but that does not constitute any sort of institutional membership or endorsement of the list. This looks for all the world like an attempt to carry fringe Gamergate conspiracy theories into the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. Two reliable sources debunking that tabloid-esque garbage is more than enough. The fact that almost no reliable sources actually picked up the story should be proof in and of itself. This is not the hill for Gamergate supporters to lay down their lives on. Parabolist (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: That's fine, I'd like to see them as I must have missed them in the article itself. I could only find 2, the CJR article quoted above and Todd VanDerWerff's article here. In the mean time, I am relatively new here, so I don't know the "Wikipedia" answer to my question above. Could you tell me how reliable is Ars Technica generally and Kyle Orland's claim that GJP is 'debunked'? (HAHA, trying to post this is hard with all the "edit conflicts" I keep getting) Ries42 (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Given the exact wording of the CJR report - which does not say how the GJPro list was debunked, just that it "was" - and the lack of any other source other than the ArsTech/Orland statement, begs the question of how it was debunked and we should not be stating that factually with at least a few other sources to assure that. Please note that I in general agree that GJPro is a red herring in GG evidents, but to be accurate, there is only really the word of one person that I can easily find to counter the GG claim of collusion. (On the other other, as one of the comments in the CJR piece states, the press have generally ignored the GJPro claim as anything actionable, but that's just a comment, we'd need a source to back that up). --MASEM (t) 04:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately, we have four separate sources saying the same thing, and if you really, really want a fifth and a sixth and a seventh, ad infinitum, we can do that too. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Parabolist: Thanks! :) Mind letting me pick your mind a bit?

This source (Vox) appears to have ties to the "list". Isn't Vox the owner of Polygon, whom Ben Kuchera is the editor of? There are several Polygon journalists on the "GJP" list, so there may be a bit of a conflict of interest with this source. Additionally, at least the article you linked to appears to have been written on September 6, before the "list" articles in mid-September and early October. This doesn't appear to be a reliable source targeted at "debunking" the GJP list. Do you disagree?

The next article from the Week is also suspect, in that it doesn't actually say much about "debunking" the GJP list. Specifically it says:

"... because he leaked a trove of basically anodyne emails between game journalists, thus giving the appearance of confirmation to #gamergate conspiracy mongers."

It doesn't read like a fact that the list is "debunked," if anything it confirms that a list exists (although it gives no information of the purpose or content of the list).

The third source you linked is the Verge article here, which actually appears to be the 'strongest' article of the four in terms of reliability, but even that doesn't appear to say the list is "debunked" as a fact. It says specifically:

"... there is no real scandal with the game journalist list — unless you believe that journalists merely speaking to one another constitutes some kind of shadowy media illuminati."

The source here doesn't appear to "debunk" the list's existence or address any other claims. Again, it seems to, in fact, prove that the list did in actuality exist without commenting on the content of the list. This source would not be a reliable source as to the content of the list, either positive or negative though, based on what is written here.

The last source is the CJR article here. There is a reason I'm asking why you believe the creator of the list, Kyle Orland, can be reliable as to "debunking" that same list. Specifically this article is the first one that actually uses the word "debunked" and states:

"about alleged collusion in video games between journalists and developers or among reporters—have been debunked."

There are two links there within the article, the second one is the important one, and I have recreated it here for ease. It links to an ArsTechnica article written by Kyle Orland as the "source" of the fact that the GJP list has been "debunked". Therefore, I challenge the reliability of this source because it does not appear to be making a claim itself that the list is debunked, but linking to an article written by Kyle Orland, as evidence that the list is already debunked. As such, the reliability of the statement "the list is debunked" is contingent on the reliability of Orland's article. So, do you assert that Kyle Orland, the creator of the GJP, is a reliable source to debunk the GJP list? Ries42 (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC) (Thanks, Sorry! :) )

I'm afraid you're not on point here. Our article does not state that the claim is debunked; rather it states that Most commentators viewed the list not as evidence of collusion, but as a platform for professional debate and discussion. We do not question on what basis reliable sources draw their conclusions — that amounts to original research. CJR is an indisputable reliable source, and that CJR writer Chris Ip views the claims as "debunked" (in his words) is more than sufficient to be a supporting source for our article's statement that Most commentators viewed the list not as evidence of collusion... NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Of course we question on what basis reliable sources draw their conclusions... in the talk page. WP:NOR states that "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages," so anything presented here is fair game, although of course it won't make it to the article, that research CAN be used to challenge the WP:RS for its WP:V and reliability. Here, there is a serious question to the reliability of the source here, not because of the author, or even the publisher, but the work itself. It states its claim is based off of an article that has a clear WP:COI, and therefore, is unreliable because of that. If the linked article would not be considered a WP:RS on its own for it's stated claim, why would another source linking that first source change it if it does not bring anything else to the claim other than parroting the first article. Ries42 (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Strongjam: - Go to vox.com theverge.com and polygon.com/games. Scroll to the bottom. You'll see a logo of VOX MEDIA at the bottom right. They are under the same parent company. They have a vested interest in protecting themselves from allegations of collusion. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• You're welcome to believe your absurd conspiracy theories. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• A company protecting its financial assets is not a conspiracy theory, it's called business. Weedwacker (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, it actually is a conspiracy theory. There is no evidence that either Vox Media nor Polygon were ever members or "financially involved" in a private e-mail list of games journalists. There is no conflict of interest, the end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
• It's just like someone saying BBC One is corrupt, and then using BBC Two as a reliable source "commentator" against that allegation of corruption. Yes, I really, really want a fifth and a sixth and a seventh source which is wholly unrelated to organizations on the GameJournoPros mailing list. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: In regards to your recent edit, would it be more accurate to say "Ryan Cooper of "The Week" labeled the list as "basically anodyne emails between game journalists" while ..." I still question the reliability of using CJR specifically as a source for GJP because of the reasons listed here. Ries42 (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

North has fixed that for you. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• @NorthBySouthBaranof: - where are your "fifth, sixth, seventh" sources? Why do you keep persisting in adding Verge and Vox? And your Westman Journal ref is broken. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears he's just going to ignore talking about it and make changes to the article... I'm lost. Is that how this is supposed to work? Ries42 (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure he'll reply once he's done making changes. Assume good faith. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright. I just figured we'd determine which sources were the best/most reliable first in the talk page and use those instead of this more carpet bomb type approach. But I suppose we could just cut what is redundant after all is posted, so nothing is really lost. Ries42 (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• @NorthBySouthBaranof: - When I first removed the information, it was only the Forbes source, and the inline text stated "most commentators". We've progressed from that point already in having new sources. You've got CJR, Week, Forbes and Westman Journal. Four unaffiliated sources are plenty. Forbes is the most critical but even Kain states that "a largely civil conversation". Why the need for the affiliated Verge and Vox? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Because neither Vox nor The Verge are "affiliated" as you keep suggesting without a shred of actual evidence. You have nothing more than a conspiracy theory. You have presented no evidence to suggest that Polygon as an entity has anything to do with GameJournoPros as an entity. The mere fact that some members of its staff participated in the list is not evidence, much less proof, of your supposed "COI," even for Polygon, much less trying to attach this to two entirely editorially-independent news sites that happen to share a common ownership. The articles in question were written by writers with no connection to the e-mail list in question. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    • writers with no connection to the e-mail list in question from news sites that happen to share a common ownership. There is a business or financial interest in Vox Media debunking allegations of collusion in one of its subsidiaries via two other of its subsidiaries. Surely, the reputation of Polygon was sullied due to one of its editors being in GameJournoPros, and GameJournoPros being alleged to be a collusion. Now, if I were Vox Media, my interest would to be how to reverse or minimize the damage of the reputation. It's simple as that. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
      • You have an interesting claim/conspiracy theory there. Oddly enough, it's not actually supported by anything other than your personal beliefs. Particularly the claim that "the reputation of Polygon was sullied" needs a citation, because... well, yeah, no, it really hasn't been, at least among anyone who isn't part of the Gamergate movement. There is no evidence in hand that anyone outside Gamergate considers those allegations to be a serious issue. The best you can do is Erik Kain waffling around the edges but ultimately admitting that pretty much everything on the list is just normal discussion. So while you're welcome to your personal beliefs, they don't really have an impact on how we judge reliable sources. You might personally believe GJP to be the biggest scandal since Teapot Dome, but the reliable sources universally disagree. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
        • I've got no problem with reliable sources not affiliated with the subject at hand. Breitbart published 11 Polygon writers as part of the list, including its Editor-in-Chief. Even Chris Plante - Senior Editor at The Verge is there. This has resulted in negative coverage, see the sources in the article, Forbes: "Breitbart piece suggested collusion" Re/Code: "spurred belief in media collusion" Washington Post: "An article at Breitbart ... didn't help matters." --> how can you twist that into something positive, I don't know.
        • Vox acknowledges Polygon as a sister site and Polygon acknowledges the Verge as a sister site. The connection is staring at you in the face, but you don't want to accept it. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 08:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Your quotes are quite telling. Re/Code notes that the allegations "spurred belief in media collusion," which acknowledges the fact that some people believe in said collusion, but doesn't suggest that belief has any grounding in reality. The part of The Washington Post quote you conveniently omit notes that Breitbart's claim is purported, which again acknowledges that Breitbart's story led some people to believe in media collusion, but does not suggest that there is any factual basis to the claims. The issue withered on the vine thereafter and disappeared from view when it became clear that there was no there, there in the e-mails.
          • You keep skirting around the fact that you don't have evidence for your purported Vox Media conspiracy theory. You have only a deep-seeded desire to believe that the opposition to Gamergate and rejection of its claims is some shadowy secret conspiracy of basically every journalist in the world, rather than simply being a logical conclusion which the facts unanimously support. I'm sorry to tell you, because this apparently must come as a shock, but the world at large has examined Gamergate's claims and largely concluded that they are at best nothingburgers (GameJournoPros) and at worst, malicious lies ("Quinnspiracy"). Endlessly repeating the claim that this conclusion is the result of underhanded conspiracy is not constructive nor does it aid in the writing of an encyclopedia based upon reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Dear North, I neither a gamer nor a GamerGate supporter. I just don't want a potential COI when we have other reliable sources already present. It's like you're on this moral crusade to destroy GamerGate that by my opposing your content, I automatically become some evil harasser or something, that's just what I feel. I'm off to edit things I feel better about. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This pile-on attempting to overturn the conclusion of, among other sources, the highly reputable tertiary source CJR, is fuelled by original research and unlikely to get anywhere within policy. I'm minded to close this discussion down as unlikely to get anywhere. Rebuttals to my suggestion, please? --TS 07:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it's a highly reputable source, but the sourced line in question here is one wherein the CJR cites the subjects of an allegation about them. Nobody is arguing that CJR isn't a reliable source, just that with that mention it's not. Weedwacker (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, we don't really care who they cite. The credibility is CJR's. News articles are not Wikipedia articles — the mere existence of an inline link to something doesn't mean that link is the only reason they're saying something. Given CJR's long history of credible reporting on media issues, there are no evident grounds upon which to second-guess the statements of a reporter for that outlet. We presume that they conducted the necessary research and reporting to make that determination and their conclusion has been reviewed by a credible fact-checking and editorial review process. If you have evidence which tends to disprove this presumption, now would be the time to produce it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a very bold statement NS :). But I'm not sure exactly if it tracks. WP:RS says a source is three different things: The piece itself (the article, and if I might be so WP:Bold, the claims the article makes), the creator (author), and the publisher of the work. WP:RS then says in bold, Any of the three can affect reliability. No one questions parts 2 or 3. No one is questioning CJR, or Chris Pi's integrity. But as WP:RS 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."

In this specific case, for this specific claim, that "GJP is debunked," the reliability of the source, the work itself, is in question. The mere existence of an inline link, with nothing more, does not in an of itself, make the work itself unreliable. However, the work states GJP is debunked as a fact, as if it were indisputable, and the inline link in this case is being used as evidence of that fact. If that evidence has serious reliability issues, how can we not then immediately question the reliability of that fact? Ries42 (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

*@NorthBySouthBaranof: May I ask you, can we at least agree that the above makes the source questionable? Even if you ultimately believe and answer that question as "The source is still reliable," can you at least agree the above points make us, as good editors, have to question the reliability of the source? Ries42 (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I certainly think you believe in good faith that there is a question of reliability, but that belief is not well-founded given the lack of any evidence for the conspiracy theory you posit. There are a number of people who believe in good faith that there is a vast global media conspiracy against Gamergate, but those beliefs cannot have an effect on the encyclopedia, any more than the fact that a number of people believe in good faith that Barack Obama is ineligible to be president would require us to present that claim as having any basis in truth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Conspiracy Theory? You're saying I am doing what now? That... what? Please, explain yourself, because that is quite an accusation. How is questioning the reliability of a source because it links to an unreliable article directly in its claim in any way a conspiracy theory. Perhaps you're conflating my argument with another?

Holy... Wow. Are you seriously equating this situation to the "Birther" movement or even the "mass Gamergate conspiracy". None of that matters. I'm asking a very specific question on the reliability of a specific source, irrespective of any other source. How is your conduct in any way appropriate? I believe you misunderstand good faith. Ries42 (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. The continual questioning of reliable sources with strong or impeccable track records of reliability and accuracy — the Columbia Journalism Review is one of the most respected media criticism publications in the world — because they are consistently reaching conclusions that Gamergate supporters disagree with is, at this point, beyond tiresome and repetitive and into the range of being tendentious. It is very much akin to the various birth certificate conspiracy theories, whose proponents constantly declaimed that only the biased liberal media was preventing the world from knowing the truth about Barack Obama being a Kenyan Muslim socialist usurper.

It's evident that y'all don't want to hear what the reliable sources have to say about Gamergate, but that's not Wikipedia's problem. The movement's total public relations failure is not going to be fixed on Wikipedia. That's not what we're here for. We're here to document the world based on what is published in mainstream reliable sources. The argument that your personal interpretation of the meaning of an inline link in an article makes Chris Ip's reporting on the subject of GameJournoPros suspect or unreliable just isn't going to fly. Ip's reporting, which has passed through CJR's editorial and fact-checking processes, is in all certainty more reliable than the self-published blogging of Erik Kain, whose work is not routinely edited or fact-checked at all. But I don't see you demanding that Kain's claims be removed from the section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, relax. Secondly, relax. Thirdly, relax.

Stop clumping me with someone else. I am no one else but myself. I do not appreciate you imparting me with bad faith because of nothing I have personally done. I'm questioning a source, not trying to overthrow your world view.

First, it is not just my own personal interpretation, it is a reasonable interpretation for what is presented. When an inline link is placed in such a way that it directly underlines a claim that is stated as fact, it is implied that the inline link is supportive of the supposition being made. That is basic sourcing. It's exactly the same as if he put a footnote at the end of the line and linked to that article.

WP:RS tells us that we must look at each item on a "Case-by-case" basis for a reason. That reason is because, no matter how infallible a source may have been in the past, WP:RS states, "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains error." Sometimes things slip through all the fact checking in the world. Sometimes those things even become laws. I'll tell you a story one day maybe, but this isn't the time for that.

Whatever your personal issues that have made you so agitated, I am sorry for them. I am sorry you have had to deal with so much shit here. And I'm sorry that it has made you angry, and resentful, and maybe even a little bit paranoid. I do not wish to make it worse, or exacerbate them. But you are using them as an excuse to abandon critical thought, and that I cannot, in good conscious, ignore. I'm going to step back for a few hours and ask you to do the same. Perhaps we can discuss this again later. Ries42 (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem with all this is the word "interpretation". We don't interpret, we quote. As long as you don't have reliable sources that corroborate your interpretation, that is original research - simple as that. Also please refrain from speculating about other editors' mental state and engage with the issues at hand. Cupidissimo (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:OR, in the talk page it states we 'are' supposed to use original research to verify reliable sources if there is reason to call the source into question for the stated proposition. Its one thing to say, "this person's opinion is X," but this particular source is saying that "X is a fact" and then using a very unreliable source as the basis of that claim. The unreliable source being Kyle Orland himself, ultimately the person who created the list in question. If that isn't unreliable because of WP:COI or WP:BIAS I don't know what is.

Therefore, to call it "CJR's opinion" is wrong, per WP:V, which would " imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source." The source treats the debunking of the GJP list as a fact. If we were to use that source in the article, we would have to treat the material as a fact. When that fact appears to be sourced on unreliable information, it would be inappropriate to put it on Wikipedia, no matter who wrote the article. Ries42 (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not "CJR's opinion," that's correct. It's a statement of fact in a reported news story published by a well-respected journalistic organization. Your claim that the fact is "sourced on unreliable information" is merely an unsupported personal opinion based on your interpretation of the article, and it's obviously not widely shared. Challenging the reliability of sources generally requires more than a personal hunch or gut feeling — to use the example of Breitbart, there exists a consensus that anything from the site is presumptively unreliable based on the wide array of reliable sources which have exposed the organization's repeated ethical failings and generally consider Breitbart to lack any journalistic credibility. What you are doing here is challenging CJR's credibility supported by nothing more than your own credibility, and CJR wins that fight by TKO. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Except... I'm not challenging CJR, or the author. I'm challenging the third prong of WP:RS, i.e., the work itself. If you or I, or anyone were to write that exact same line in the article, and sourced it as the CJR article does, would you let it stand as reliable? Ries42 (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Huh? You are stating that the author and publisher are fine, but if the author and publisher were not reliable would it be OK? well of course not. But they are, Blanche. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

But that's my point. WP:RS states there are three elements to a reliable source, and that each of them affects the reliability. I grant that the reliability is generally good in this case because we have a good author, and a good publication. If the assertion was neutral, there would be no issue at all. But that isn't the case, the issue is the work itself, the fact itself, is supported by a very unreliable source. My challenge above was to spotlight exactly how unreliable the assertion is. It cannot stand on its own, its only being entertained because of the author/publication. But WP:RS states that any of the three can affect the reliability, both positively and negatively. In this case, there are other sources that could very well be sourced to assert the opinion that the GJP list is not very notable. We should use those because they are ultimately more reliable. There is, as far as I can see, only one source that labels it as a fact that the list is completely debunked. And that fact is on shaky ground because it bases that fact from a piece written by Kyle Orland. For that reason, the CJR source should not be used, specifically related to GJP. Otherwise it is a very reliable source and its other assertions are, as far as I can tell, reliable and unquestioned. There should be no issue using this piece as a source in other sections of the main article, but its inappropriate as a source in regards to the GJP list because the only assertion it makes to that issue is unreliable. Ries42 (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's what it boils down to. You are claiming to know exactly how Chris Ip reported and wrote the article based on nothing more than your inference drawn from the existence of an inline link in the article. News articles are not Wikipedia articles, inline links are not necessarily the only "sources" used and you have absolutely no idea what other reporting Chris Ip did to draw the conclusion he did. Unless you can read Chris Ip's mind and tell us with metaphysical certaintude that the link in question is the only thing which supports his reportorial conclusion, all we have is your personal opinion about what you think of the source, and your opinion does not outweigh the clearly-expressed judgment of Ip's editors and fact-checkers at CJR who approved the piece for publication. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess at this point, the best thing to do is say, I disagree with you, I'm not the only one, and leave it at that. Perhaps we should see if there is a consensus as to whether this source is reliable besides the two of us? Ries42 (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If you really want to keep wasting everyone's time on this quixotic quest to declare one of the most respected journalism magazines "unreliable," you're welcome to launch a thread on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, can we please avoid turning the section into another massive block of quotes used to argue things by proxy? I think that given the sources we've been able to find, it's clear that the overwhelming majority of commentary does agree that there is no scandal there; Erik Kain seems to be the only noteworthy source outside of Breitbart that disagrees (and even then, only slightly, since he says that only two things caught his eye); and nothing about him makes him notable enough for us to turn that section into a back-and-forth about his views, especially since "overwhelming majority" still clearly allows for a few dissenting voices (like his) to exist. --Aquillion (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

While I certainly want to avoid turning this section into a quote fest, I'm trying to nail down the reliable sources that actually state your proposition that an "overwhelming majority" of reliable sources believe that. There are reliability issues with many of the sources which state that proposition, for WP:COI and WP:RS grounds. Ries42 (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Orland himself recognises some slight wrongdoing as well in this article. "In short, some of the private thoughts I shared in the wake of Gjoni's blog post crossed the line, and I apologize for airing them. It was an error in judgment." He seems to sympathise with Kain's POV a bit here.Bosstopher (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Except that rather than supporting the claims of "collusion" or "groupthink," this bit of evidence supports the idea that the list hosted freewheeling debate and promoted healthy, professional discussion – Orland admits to a pair of personal missteps, but says the other members of the list disapproved of his proposals and did not, as has been charged, engage in "collusive" behavior. Later in the discussion thread, cooler heads prevailed and made me realize that this would be overstepping our primary role as reporters and observers (which is exactly the kind of productive, self-correcting debate the group engenders). No such note was ever sent. and No one else in the group took this suggestion seriously, as the game still has only one scored review on Metacritic. While I was wrong to suggest it, the utter lack of response clearly disproves allegations of "collusion" among game journalists. Instead, it shows the independent spirit of those who participate in the group. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes and this is pretty similar to what Kain's POV is on the issue for the most part. Kain's eyebrow raising moments, arent argued to be examples of collusion but rather examples of personal wrongdoing.Bosstopher (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Right, agreed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• support closure given zero evidence of collusion and multiple sources identifying no collusion, this "discussion" is over. consensus does not rely on converting every tinfoil hat wearing crusader. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

L Agreed. This is classic attempts to ignore reliable sources and make them appear more controversial than they actually are because some people aren't happy with what they say. Consensus and policy are both clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• The only issue with the present wording that I see is: The overwhelming majority of commentators described the list as evidence of nothing more than the fact that journalists engage in professional discussion, advice and debate isn't accurate in the emphasized part s the GJPro list has been relatively overlooked compared to the harassment, so few have actually commented on it, but we do have. Most commentators that evaluated the list considered it a standard practice across most professions to have an informal venue to discuss matters relating to their profession, and did not consider this a form of collusion. captures the "size" of the commentator pool better as well as the fact most were like "this is what every professional does". --MASEM (t) 16:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with saying "most commentators" as some sources did not address the collusion allegations and Kain at least felt there were disconcerting conversations. Obviously, not everything has been dismissed either. From what I have seen, members of GameJournoPros do more or less concede that there was a serious issue there, but they put it on Destructoid rather than the mailing list.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 08:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Cutting

This paragraph:

Depression Quest was released through Steam in August 2014, which coincided with the suicide of actor Robin Williams. Quinn, who had received the notification of the release from Steam shortly after the news about Williams' death, decided to release the game free as a service to those who may be suffering from depression, the only revenue the game receives is "pay what you want" proceeds, part of which are donated to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.[10][11] She said she did not want to be seen as capitalizing on the public tragedy, and decided that instead she would promote the game some time later out of respect for Williams.[12][13][14] Nonetheless her timing was criticized.[10]

Appears to be... unnecessary and long-winded and doesn't really talk about the controversy or really provide much relevant context or history. Can we edit the next paragraph with something like the following and just cut that whole first paragraph:

"Shortly after the release [Depression Quest in August 2014], Quinn's former..." Ries42 (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Endorsed as irrelevant. Propose replace with Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on the Steam software in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend... DQ was originally released in February 2013 as per the above paragraph. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm partly unsure, but I also think this information would be more fitting for the page on the game and not on this article. Weedwacker (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This para yeah, it is a bit too much (we need to establish Quinn and DQ prior to the event but at this point, we don't need info about the release ). --MASEM (t) 06:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, not really relevant here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Removed, thanks all for the comments. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Depression Quest initial release

I am confused. Depression Quest was released on Steam in August 2014. But it was initially released in February 2013 - on what platform? The sources are unclear - Daily Dot doesn't say anything from what I've read, and New Yorker just says Depression Quest, a free interactive fiction game released in 2013. From the Depression Quest Wikipedia article, Game Politics write that The game was originally released on February 14 of last year. Verge writes lo-fi Twine games like Depression Quest. A mystery indeed. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Steam is a distribution platform, not a publisher. DQ was self published prior to its distribution on the Steam platform, likely from a website. This is why it was released and available prior to its Steam launch. With that being said, inclusion on Steam likely substantially increased its visability and rate of distribution. Ries42 (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I see. It would be good to get a source saying that it was released on a website. Perhaps it is this website. So it was already readily accessible, it seems. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not have a source to corroborate that; however, I suspect you are correct. Ries42 (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Solved - Kodra22 presented a reliable source on my talk page. I have added the relevant information to the article. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Is the quote farm gone yet?

We recently hacked out a lot of quotes, either removing them as redundant or unnecessary, or else refactoring them. Is the work far enough progressed that we can remove the tag? I suspect not. And if not, I strongly recommend reducing the problem by vigorous editing.

Discussion of the finer points is okay too, but putting prosaic statements of fact into quotations (or, even worse, scare quotes) is a symptom of timidity and is bad practice. Be bold!

Perhaps we should paraphrase rather than remove entirely, when and only when the alternative would be to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Hacking stuff out is probably okay at this advanced stage. --TS 07:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever progress was made elsewhere it was probably overwhelmed in the gamejournalpros -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Clearly TRPoD hasn't read the latest version of the article, even at the time of his post. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

An unusual sourcing quandary, part 2

We use an archived version of the Vox piece to support As early gamers were predominantly male this is also seen as having contributed to gendered interpretations of the identity, and we also use it to talk about the mailing list. The problem is that the archive version doesn't really talk about it, but the live version does. I'm not sure how best to resolve this. For some background see archives. — Strongjam (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If the point isn't supported by other, current reliable sources, it should probably just be removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's also sourced from the guardian article "They often did this with style and humour, but they knew their audience – predominantly young males."Bosstopher (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I've attempted to re-word based on other sources. I think the only thing we needed the Vox source for was the "gendered interpretations of the identity" — Strongjam (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Top-level organization

This article kind of stumbles around, going back and forth between presenting developments by theme, then chronologically, and back again. It also has problems of scope, with lots of citations about background developments and cultural context outside the sections devoted to those topics. The problem is of an organizational nature that will not be fixed by incremental edits.

I propose a top level reorganization: History - a chronological recap of events with a direct proximal contribution - namely, Depression Quest, the Green Label and TFYC game jams, Eroj Gjoni, early threats against Zoe Quinn, and Adam Baldwin's creation of the hash tag

Gamer and Minority Identity - general cultural context, Tropes vs Women, Jennifer Hepler, "Gamers are Dead", and NotYourShield

Ethics Concerns - GameJournoPros, endorsement disclosures, Polytron financials, IGDA and Indiecade voting structures, blacklisting, and news outlets' reactions to these topics

GamerGate structure and activity - leaderless nature, political leanings, fundraising, boycotts, advertiser pullouts, etc

Online Harassment - anything about anyone getting harassed about and because of the hash tag

This would initially entail no addition or deletion of text or citations, just a reordering. It will no doubt help clarify though where the content itself is in need of further editing. Rhoark (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that a chronological reorganization might be more effective. We could start off with the pre-Gamergate events, like the initial accusations against Quinn and the TFYC events, then move into the creation of the hashtag, the harassment of Sarkeesian, the "Gamers are Dead" articles, NotYourShield, and Gamejournopros, Operation Disrespectful Nod and Gawker stuff, then the harassment of Wu, Day, and Sarkeesian in October. Any events I've forgotten can go wherever they belong chronologically. After that we could have sections on media analysis and whatnot. That way, there's a clear rundown of what exactly happened instead of piecing the events together by theme, and then we can get into why it happened. I think it would help tremendously with clarity and readability. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think chronological ordering is only helpful when there is a sequence of causality for that ordering to put a spotlight on. Past the creation of the hashtag, there are so many strands to the issue that putting everything in a single timeline would obscure rather than illuminate how one event relates to another. Rhoark (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily true in this case. You have Quinn's harassment leading to the creation of the Gamergate hashtag. At around the same time, Sarkeesian released a new video and was subsequently harassed. The harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian led to the "Gamers are Dead" articles, leading to Operation Disrespectful Nod etc. The only thing that I think falls outside is the harassment of Wu, Day, and the school shooting threat, but with Wu and Day the harassment was a result of their opinions on Gamergate. I don't think that obscures anything at all. From my perspective, at least, it's a pretty straightforward cause and effect series of events. We don't need to overcomplicate it by sorting events by theme and explaining over and over which events are related to other events in different sections. Kaciemonster (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Those things are consequences of one another, but more in a gestalt sense than in the manner of a Rube Goldberg mousetrap. The real issue is that a strictly timeline-oriented approach gives undue weight to minor events happening in between major ones. Rhoark (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

So then we either don't include the minor events, or we give them coverage equivalent to the amount that they're given in reliable sources. I don't think that's giving minor events undue weight, and if they're worth mentioning at all why would it make sense to mention them outside of the context that makes them worth mentioning in the first place? Kaciemonster (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That's kind of my point. Putting citations in context avoids the catch-22 that mere presence might give undue weight. I think I may be taking a finer-grained view of what constitutes an "event" here. The scenario I want to avoid is for the reactions to an event to be orphaned from discussion of the event itself due to overly-mechanical adherence to a chronological organization. Rhoark (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we might be talking past each other. I'm not suggesting that we separate commentary on events from the timeline, I'm suggesting we organize events in the order that they happened. It doesn't make sense to separate related events because they have different themes. Why would we separate the TFYC events from the initial allegations against Quinn and put it into a section about the Gamergate movement when most (if not all) of the events involving them happened before Gamergate even existed? Why would we separate the "Death of Gamer" articles from NotYourShield and Operation Disrespectful Nod? The current article removes events from their context, leading to an article that jumps forward and backward in time and makes it significantly more difficult for a reader to piece together what actually happened and why. Kaciemonster (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but I can't envision how the clarity could be improved by combining the section on GG as an organization with its activities and the section on gender identity into a shared timeline. Maybe that reflects how people are talking past each other in the controversy as a whole. Rhoark (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I've produced an example of what I propose. The lede is excluded, since that's being worked elsewhere. Otherwise nothing has been added or removed, only rearranged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rhoark/sandbox/Gamergate_controversy Rhoark (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Rhoark, although a timeline approach may be appropriate after the article has been cleaned up significantly more to where such an issue wouldn't be as likely. In either event, I feel that any reorganization should be on hold until the article is cleaned up significantly. Ries42 (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Having undertaken the exercise of actually reorganizing it, I feel more than ever that cleaning can't be meaningfully addressed without also tackling organization. As it is, citations of different things are just peppered all over without rhyme or reason. Rhoark (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Cute that you moved all of the material about harassment — the single most notable part of Gamergate — to the bottom. It's rather obvious that such an organization is unacceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That is not an accurate characterization. The History section is mostly about the harassment of Zoe Quinn, while the Gender Identity section discusses harassment as a general phenomenon. Exhaustive listing of who was harassed and when fits best after the history and context have been fully established. Rhoark (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't, really. The only reason Gamergate is even notable is the harassment campaigns its members undertook. As has been exhaustively discussed here previously, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, PBS NewsHour, ABC News (Australia), Wired, The New Yorker, New York, The Telegraph, etc. etc. etc. all wrote articles about Gamergate's harassment campaigns — not "but ethics." The controversy Gamergate spawned has nothing to do with "ethics in games journalism" and everything to do with anonymous, misogynistic harassment of women in video gaming. Much of what Gamergate has subsequently done is, in fact, a direct result of its negative reaction to media characterizations of the movement as an excuse for online harassment and as an exemplar of the existence of sexism in video gaming culture. Operation Disrespectful Nod, for one, would never have existed if the movement hadn't been launched by vitriolic attacks on Zoe Quinn, which spurred many in the video games media to write columns which criticized video game culture for misogyny, juvenility and a blase attitude toward harassment, which were responded to with... yes, more harassment. Your proposition is a non-starter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

While this statement (GG is here because of the attention the harassment got) is absolutely not wrong, it's also not a long-term thinking aspect - but that's part of the difficulty here. We should be considering how to structure this article when a year from now (assuming GG is effectively a non-story) how to present this information for posterity. The current structure was great with events happening rapidly, but that structure is not well suited for understanding the situation from a stable situation. I don't know the right answer, but I dont think we can be as closed minded to restructuring that better explains the narrative with the dust settled. How to do that, though, I just don't know a clear answer. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm definitely not saying that the current structure is perfect, and I agree with you that it should be improved. But moving all the harassment to the bottom, when the reason Gamergate appeared on the front pages of newspapers worldwide has everything to do with harassment, is not an option. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Again "all the harassment" was not moved to the bottom. It is very well represented in all sections. The principle cause of a topic's notability should be addressed in the lede but doesn't otherwise dictate the structure of an article. Context belongs before an exhaustive list of incidents. Rhoark (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I really think we're putting the cart before the horse so to speak. There is a lot in this article that needs to be trimmed or just completely cut. Trying to find a good, sane, and logical organization scheme with so much else to do is going to be difficult. I say we revisit reorganization after cutting a bit more fat. Ries42 (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Organization is entailed in deciding what needs to be cut. In my example, the "Media Reaction" section consists entirely of citations that are quotes not supporting any other claim in the article. Some of them may be extraneous, while others could be reworked as a citation for a claim somewhere in the article that isn't just a direct quote. Preserving but reorganizing them is an effective aid to deciding their final disposition. Rhoark (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Harassment shouldn't be at the bottom (though criticism in regards to it should be lower), however, one arrangement I've brainstormed would be to have the current background, but ending on the accusations against Quinn and likely Sarkeesain, which would be the point of departure for the two threads (ethics vs harassment). The first would be who the GG group are, their issues against Quinn, Sarkeesian, and journalism, and how their stated ethics claims are unworkable. Then the second is the continued harassment including Wu, the "Death of Gamers"/email Operations, and so on. And then we get into the criticism of GG. It's not a perfect idea yet, but it does avoid putting the harassment too far down the article but giving enough details to talk about who GG are and getting into the rest of the historical record of the harassment. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm been long thinking about the structure, and the way this story has developed, there's no good way to present it because for all purposes we have two "story" threads - GG's issues with ethics, and the harassment, which only touch when the first false accusations about Quinn came out. Everything else that GG itself has done beyond the ethics are in response to what the press has said about them (the various Operations, etc.). Who GG are should be explained early on, but explaining them earlier than the harassment seems wrong, and either way I order it in my head, there's no good narrative thread. Maybe there is a way to do that, but I really don't know. We should have separate sections on the group, on the actual events (without commentary unless necessary), and then criticism and analysis of the situation, that's clear, but the ordering is a mess due to the overall situation. --MASEM (t) 20:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the criticism of the placement of the Harassment section, to address concerns I've tried to find homes higher in the article for as much as possible of the content. The material has been distributed around the History and Gender sections. The final section is now termed "Subsequent Harassment", consisting of specific incidents happening in or later than October. These changes are reflected in the current revision at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rhoark/sandbox/Gamergate_controversy Rhoark (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The second proposed revision was boldly posted and reverted. Criticisms that the first revised version gave insufficient weight to incidences of harassment has already been addressed in the second version. If there are further concerns, please share them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rhoark/sandbox/Gamergate_controversy Rhoark (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Your changes amounted to a wholesale rewrite, and I don't see any consensus on this page for a wholesale rewrite. Nor do I agree that you have in any way addressed the concerns. Gamergate appeared in The New York Times due to death threats made against Anita Sarkeesian — your rewrite moved that fact to the very bottom of the article. It's not "recentism" to depict the movement primarily based upon what has been written about it in mainstream reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The changes are far-reaching, but hardly a rewrite considering nearly every paragraph of the original remained contiguous. Harassment is a significant part of the controversy and retains principle prominence in the modified article. The Eron Gjoni letter received enough media attention to meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. Media attention above and on top of that is worth mentioning, but is not the defining feature of the controversy or the article. Sarkeesian is given space in the section on Gamer Identity and Minorities, where her views are contrasted with those of GamerGate. The threat against her in Utah occurred after the GamerGate controversy was well underway, and has no substantiated connection with GamerGate apart from the fact that Sarkeesian is unpopular among GamerGate supporters. As such, a place in the further reaches of the article is entirely appropriate for the Utah incident. The article as a whole has a problem with recentism, as it was built organically with unfolding events. Individual editors added their contributions in ways that neither presented a chronological or topic-themed account. Rhoark (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The Utah threats DO in fact have a direct and documented connection to gamergate. [3] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The university received copycat threats after Sarkeesian publicized the original. It stands that the threat she cited in her decision to cancel her appearance had no connection to Gamergate. Even if the threat had been connected, and it was widely deemed as the most notable incident of all related to Gamergate, that would not be cause to place it higher in the article to the detriment of chronological or topical ordering. You can see this in any WP article about a person or organization most known for illegal or notorious acts. The matter is mentioned in the lede, then addressed in full after more biographical and contextual matter. Rhoark (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. What exactly allows you to distinguish a copycat gamergater threat from a real gamergater threat? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Copycat threats are real threats. That is not the salient question, of which there are two. First, whether the threat that caused the engagement to be cancelled was connected to Gamergate. It was not. Second, if the threat was or was not connected, does this mean the incident must be described early in the article. In either case, it does not. Rhoark (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Sorry. As per The Washington Post: The Utah State threat is just the latest one in the ongoing saga of Gamergate, an increasingly nasty culture war between video-game critics like Sarkeesian and a mob of gamers. (See this post by the Post’s Caitlin Dewey for more.) Sarkeesian isn’t the only woman who has received death threats in connection with Gamergate. On Friday, game developer Brianna Wu left her home after alerting police that she received a death threat that included her home address. Zoe Quinn, an independent developer who was the original target of Gamergate, was also forced to leave her home because of death threats. In August, the threats grew so severe that Sarkeesian was forced to flee her home too. Your personal opinion that the threat isn't linked cannot override the fact that the reliable sources universally link the threats to the movement. And if you're going to argue that all of the reliable sources are part of a worldwide media conspiracy against Gamergate, then this is not the encyclopedia project you are looking for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

None of that is pertinent to whether GamerGate caused the Utah cancellation, and where on the page the topic should be addressed. Rhoark (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

When you start declaring that multiple reliable sources that explicitly connect gamergate to the utah cancellation are not pertinent, you are clearly establishing either a WP:COMPETENCE issue or a WP:NOTHERE issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Take care that you are not developing an ad-hominem issue. I am not discussing whether Gamergate is connected to Utah by a general cloud of opprobrium. The cancellation was caused by a specific letter. The specific letter is not identified by itself or other evidence as coming from a Gamergate supporter. FBI investigation determined the letter was consistent with threats Sarkeesian received in the past, before Gamergate existed. All of these facts are confirmed by reliable secondary sources, but the pertinent question, which no amount of block quoted spam can resolve, is what any of it means for how high on the page the incident should appear. Rhoark (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The Utah cancellation was caused by the fact that the interpretation of Utah gun laws would mean that guns would not be prohibited from the auditorium after death threats involving guns and bombs were received. to claim that it was canceled because of a specific letter that did not specifically mention gamergate is not supported by ANY source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Nooooope. Sarkeesian, in turn, has drawn heavy criticism from some gamers, and even threats of violence that led her to cancel a speech at Utah State University. But Sarkeesian’s case is only one part of a broader online assault on women in the gaming industry in recent months. It goes back to August, when an ex-boyfriend of video game designer Zoe Quinn posted an online blog. In it, he accused Quinn of sleeping with a reporter to get a positive review on one of her games. That sparked a campaign that came to be dubbed GamerGate, highlighting perceived corruption among video game journalists. From there, GamerGate has grown to include outright harassment of women like Quinn and Sarkeesian who work in or critique the industry. Threats on Twitter even forced Brianna Wu, another game developer, to leave her Boston area home after her address was made public. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

As discussed above, the claim that it's not linked to Gamergate is just flat wrong. The defining nature of the Gamergate controversy, to use your words, is the misogynistic harassment of Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu and others. That's not my opinion - that's the overwhelming consensus of a wide range of mainstream reliable sources which have examined the controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a note here, as I understand things, the harassment of Wu in the start of things was not tied to Gamergate, but was found to be the work of a Brazilian "Click Bait" news "reporter" (I use that term loosely). Later targeting of Wu came in response to her involvement in a mass banning of members of the "Mighty No. 9" forum after their names showed up in Wu's blocklist of Gamergate members. The main argument which members had with her in that later point being that they had backed the kickstarter for the game, some substantially (one claiming upwards of a thousand dollars US), and posting on the forum was a perk that came with the donations.Kitsunedawn (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the structural concerns are unfounded, but we should be slow and methodical about this. For example, I think the "Hashtag" section should be above the "Debate about ethics concerns" section, because it's true that we should explain what the movement is before we explain the debate over their claims. So I'll make that one change and see if it gains consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm basically not seeing anything in the article that would require such sweeping changes. At the moment I feel our most important goals should be to try and reduce the quote-farmyness a bit and remove some things that seemed important in the past but which are now clearly less significant in retrospect (eg. The Fine Young Capitalists section, the DiGRA section); but I don't see any particular reason to push for, say, a total rewrite of the lead or a massive reorganization of the article. Overall this article is pretty good (and given the amount of very recent time and effort and discussion that went into getting it up to its current quality level, I think that we'd need more reasons than have been provided here to make such sweeping changes.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The rewrite of the lede is a process with support and participation from a lot of people, higher on the talk page. Reorganization is needed for several reasons. Firstly, the article has been built incrementally as events unfold, leaving information presented in an order that is not the most logical (It exhibits "recentism"). Whether you believe the most logical order is chronological or topical, the article is presently neither. As you noted, there is excess material that should be excised, but placing everything in a coherent order helps show what information is and is not contributing to a coherent presentation. Reorganizing is a way of facilitating pruning, not a competing process. Rhoark (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above, 100% Protonk (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward

The ordering of the article as it stands exhibits WP:RECENTISM and WP:PROSELINE. The naming of sections does not adhere to WP:NDESC (a policy for article rather than section titles, but similar reasoning applies.) The gestalt effect is that the article does not conform to the directive of WP:STRUCTURE that structure should not "make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints." The proposed rearrangement mitigates these concerns without inducing new problems, maintaining all existing content, and as such any general refusal in principal to come to a consensus that addresses the above problems should not alter a default decision to accept the modification as a baseline for further editing.

Specific and justified objections to the modification should of course be resolved before consensus can be considered to be achieved. The view has been expressed that the article should be organized in a more chronological and less topical manner. The proposed revision prefers topical organization, but is still more chronologically coherent than the article as it stands. The possibility of hypothetical superior edits without specific problems noted in the actual edits does not justify reversion. Accepting the proposed revision does not limit the possibility for more chronological organization in the future. There have been suggestions that pruning excess material should be a higher priority than reordering material; however, these are not competing objectives. Improved organization puts material in a context that allows its importance to be more fairly judged. There is no cause to delay reorganization. Finally, there was the concern that the article order did not give due weight to the place of harassment. To allay these concerns, more material about harassment was placed higher in the article. Again, no sentence or citation has been added or removed. The objection was retained on the specific placement of the Utah Sarkeesian incident. I have given my position, which is that this placement is consistent with policies on due weight and analogy to the structures of other articles on WP. Given that this remaining objection is tied to a specific paragraph and not the general project of reorganization, the placement of this specific paragraph can be pursued with further bold edits that do not require complete reversion of the reorganization. The state of the lede remains its own separate matter. In light of the above, barring new specific and justified objections in the interim, the revised order will be published again shortly. Given that concerns have been presented and addressed, discussion or bold edits should be preferred to reverts for further consensus-seeking. Rhoark (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

A Counter-Proposal

All right. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and I'd prefer to avoid from WP:Battleground articles, but this is one case where an article definitely needs some editorial help. I tried perusing it, and found it frankly unreadable. To be fair, the ongoing focus on most of the discussion here has been on what content and sources to include/exclude, and there have been a slew of more recent edits and comments that seems to have improved things, but there's still work left to do. The single outstanding issue with the article that I can see is, as @Rhoark states, the lack of any coherent organization. I tend to disagree with Rhoark about the validity of a timeline-based format, though I agree that there are clearly some elements that would not mesh well into such a pattern. I propose the following top-tier organization for the main body, leaving every else as sub-headers within the various sections:

• Background would cover anything relevant that occurred prior to August 2014, specifically focusing on 1) the development of a 'gamer' identity and culture, 2) prior incidences of sexism/harassment and/or prior discussions of feminism within video gaming, and 3) prior notable incidents involving tech and video game journalism.
• History would cover the major events in chronological order from August 2014. This seems to be the most hotly debated point, so I leave it to other hands to flesh out, though I would encourage concision - short enough for a single subheader covering the early days of the controversy prior to the hashtag, a single subheader covering the circumstances of its initial use, that sort of thing.
• Responses would cover any notable elements that for one reason or another did not suit the chronological treatment of the other two sections. This would of course include the existing content 'Media Reactions' and 'Industry Reactions', but I would be inclined to compile and include subsections for 'Feminist Reactions' (for any material re: Sarkeesian and/or Sommers that didn't fit in 'History') and possibly 'Police Responses' (covering any material on police investigation of harassment and/or death threats, including the USU incident). The big danger of such a section would be its tendency to start resembling a kitchen sink (Mention all the things!) so in this as before I would encourage concision.

There are plenty of substantive changes I'd like to see, but as a new editor, I think it'd be safer for me to stick to the more non-controversial end of the spectrum. Thanks for listening. PublicolaMinor (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

New developments; FBI investigations

As we prune down the verbiage from past events, we have to make sure to keep an eye on recent events so the article remains current. #Gamergate Is Reportedly Being Investigated by the FBI will be noteworthy as it develops. Tarc (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It's already been added (I did that earlier today). And to be truthful, all we know is that the FBI has a GG file based on a request under a Freedom of Information request, they are no established details of how extensive it is. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, well silly me I searched thru the talk page first and found no mention; didn't think it'd be in the article already. Looks good, just a brief blurb for now. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There are also no details on exactly what they are investigating. It could be an investigation of the movement itself, it could be specific threats on any number of people that were reported to the FBI, we don't know and we can't make presumptions in the article. Weedwacker (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Something to watch re Jimmy Wales + GG

[4] (Not a reliable source to add from, but it is documenting what you can find elsewhere). This hasn't been picked up by major other sources, nor do I immediately thinks it needs to be documented in here if this gets covered (Perhaps at Wikipedia:Press coverage 2014), however, it could be a possible inclusion since arguably Jimmy's response is straight to the point to what is wrong with the GG movement, and I've seen many devs on twitter repeat it in 100% agreement with it. --MASEM (t) 01:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Another mention: [5] - "Attempts to influence Wikipedia" may be a better section heading, though I worry that it may be too meta. Artw (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Great, so Wikipedia has officially become a part of the story. Weedwacker (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Not yet. It might, this would be the start of where WP gets involved in the story, but far too early to tell if even necessary to include here. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, Masem. We're not at the point where this merits inclusion yet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's get some things straight about reliability

@TheRedPenOfDoom This is the second time you have attempted to use page formatting to stifle discussion on this topic. There is no cause for urgency in declaring any discussion topic to be closed or done, and if it is finished that should be supported by an outside party or a consensus of multiple participants. If there is something at RSN you feel has particular relevance, please link to it directly, as it is non-obvious. If no justifications for the collapse are forthcoming, it should be removed posthaste. If you decide to remove it, you may remove this comment along with it. Rhoark (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The rationale is that this is NOT a forum - it is for improving the article. "discussions" that are leading nowhere toward improving the article and in this case are also being discussed in the proper forum elsewhere [6] SHOULD be shut down . and given the 17 pages of archives, more should have been shut down earlier and oftener before as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

just because you got slapped down there too ("I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding regarding Wikipedia policy here - we don't second-guess sources, and rule them out for specific statements because we don't like sources they may have used." ) doesnt mean you can come back here and continue such disruption. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you are confused. The discussion you have linked concerns entirely different matters. I have never been a party to that discussion. Matters of opinion have been raised by different sides in this thread; however, the thread root and most of the branches concern WP policies and how they should be applied to improve this article. I reiterate that you should remove the collapse formatting yourself, then read the thread root in full before taking any other action here. Rhoark (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I am getting this new flock of SPAs all confused. But the issue is the same, this is not the page to discuss your unique interpretation of the policy. Please go to WP:RSN to receive your personal slapping if you feel it is necessary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll ask a final time that you remove the collapse, or solicit a WP:THIRDOPINION. If you remove the collapse, feel free to also remove the discussion of it. Rhoark (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Having gotten the same "straightening" about the policies at RSN, I believe this is done. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I keep seeing a general sentiment echoed along the theme that Wikipedia policies on reliable sourcing mean that WP must privilege sources from commercial news outlets concerning Gamergate, or that Gamergate would not meet notability guidelines without the attention of commercial news outlets, and therefore the article must agree with news outlets that Gamergate is mostly about sexual harassment, that ethical considerations are minor or illegitimate, or must otherwise be generally critical of Gamergate. Such ideas stem from a superficial misreading of policy. First let's get notability out of the way. News media attention does not itself constitute notability. WP:NOTNEWS Notability requires attention from reliable secondary sources, of which news outlets are a representative, but not the only kind. (Reliability will be further discussed below.) There are further criteria to meet for a news event to be notable. Description of criminal activity is not automatically notable. WP:N/CA A key criteria for the notability of an event is that it have lasting effects WP:LASTING. Contributors to the notability of Gamergate would include spurring Twitter to partner with outside organizations to contain harassment, Gawker Media's loss of millions of dollars in advertising revenue, and the FTC issuing new guidelines on disclosing advertiser affiliations. These things, and not national attention on Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and Brianna Wu, cause Gamergate to meet WP notability guidelines. (There are further requirements, which Gamergate meets, at WP:EVENT.) Once notability is established this justifies the existence of an article, but does not determine the scope of that article. WP:NNC An article does not need to limit itself to the aspects of the topic that caused it to fulfill WP notability standards. So, even if one persists in believing harassment to be the cause of notability, it does not constitute an editorial mandate. In fact, it is a guideline to avoid letting the aspects of an article that attract particular news attention and criticism dominate WP's coverage of the topic WP:BALASPS As to the matter of what makes a reliable source, national news organizations are indeed reliable sources when it comes to the reporting of facts; however, "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." WP:NEWSORG In effect, when not dealing with matters of fact news organizations are operating on the same level as any biased source. In WP's particular usage of the terms a source can be both reliable and biased, in that they are reliable reporters of a particular point of view. WP:BIASED As such, an editorial commentator would be reliable in reporting a fact, such as the number of tweets made with the #gamergate tag, but would not be reliable in the context of claiming the tweets were mostly misogynist. At best it would be reliable in reporting that the opinion exists and in identifying specific individuals who hold the opinion. If an opinion is numerically preponderant, that may be worth noting that in order not to give undue weight to minority opinions. WP:UNDUE This does not however mean that editors must tacitly accept the preponderant opinion as true. On the contrary, editors have a duty not to endorse or reject a point of view WP:IMPARTIAL. If a point of view is a fringe one to the point that a population of supporters cannot be readily identified, then it can be justifiably omitted from consideration at all, but such a circumstance clearly does not apply to Gamergate. It would be impossible to carry on a controversy in which the opposing side cannot be found. Indeed, "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." The population believing that women should not be in the game industry is a vanishingly small number of anonymous individuals, so that point of view is rightly given no space in the article. The number of people advocating for ethics in game journalism is in the tens of thousands, easily forming a peer group to those who have written about misogyny in Gamergate. Therefore, adequate space should be given to describing ethics activism. Page space should be dedicated in approximate proportion to the availability of reliable sources, so criticism of Gamergate should receive a degree of preference in space. To reiterate, this is a preference in space, not content, and the space for the minority view must be sufficient that, "it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." The minority section should also be unburdened by insertions of WP:HOWEVER. Now, as to the sources that are available to support the minority view, they can be found among factual matters in mainstream sources, the grudging admissions of fence-sitters, and a few friendly journalists. As someone who engages in professional fact checking and issues retractions, TotalBiscuit fulfills the WP:VERIFIABILITY that underlies reliability. However, there is also an ocean of untapped content at KotakuInAction. Although Reddit is in general a "questionable source", such sources are reliable on the topic of themselves. WP:ABOUTSELF Consequently, there is a great deal of material about the membership, aims, and achievements of Gamergate that can and should be included in this article. There are limitations too of course, on claims that are exceptional or about living persons. On the topic of living persons, it should be noted concurrently that as a group of living persons the members of Gamergate are not due the same level of defense as an individual living person on WP, but the onus is on editors to use high quality sources and deploy statements of opinion judiciously. At last, if I may wax philosophical for a moment, there is an objective truth to the situation that we can't yet agree upon. The numerical preponderance of secondary sources is mandated to influence the structure of the article, but we are not required to take the popularity of an opinion as part of the epistemological underpinning of all our editing. There are things we can know to be true even with a dearth of Wikipedia-ready sources, and let those truths influence our editing within the existing guidelines. What I know to be true is that there are tens of thousands of people in Gamergate who value and welcome the contributions of women and have no desire to silence them or drive them out. Every suggestion I have seen of violence or harassment has been condemned unanimously. They would gladly be partners against online misconduct with anyone who would engage them without presumptions of guilt, but the continual demonization gives cover and encouragement to those actually engaging in hostility. It certainly doesn't compare to the affronts that have been shown to women, but the sincere efforts of Gamergate have been maligned by the failure of WP:NPOV in this article, and that will be corrected in the weeks to come. It is my hope that incumbent editors will challenge new contributions, but in a spirit of cooperation, and without misapplying WP policies to stymie the process as described heretofore. Rhoark (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Call me pessimistic but I don't think you will actually persuade anyone, or at least established editors, with this particular long post. They will come out thinking the way they were already. Though, I must laud your effort, but I fear you will be summarily dismissed. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Responding to all of this at once is improbable, but to address one key point, KotakuInAction is never acceptable as a source in this article. You cite WP:SELFPUB apparently without reading it. In pertinent part, Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves ... so long as: it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities) (and) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.. All of Gamergate's "aims and achievements" involve claims about third parties, and many of them are derogatory or defamatory. No self-published source is acceptable for such material. Furthermore, due to the fact that Reddit posts are anonymous, there is every reason to have doubt about the authenticity of statements made therein. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC) As I mentioned, there are limitations, including on claims about third parties. There is ample material that does not make such claims. For example, from the mission statement: "We welcome artistic freedom and equal opportunities for creators and creations. We condemn censorship, exclusion, harassment, and abuse. This is a community for discussion of these issues, and for organizing campaigns for reform, so that the industry can be held accountable for its actions and gamers can enjoy their medium without being unjustly attacked or slandered." WP does not appear to establish formal guidelines for judging authenticity. Wikitionary definitions are "The quality of being genuine or not corrupted from the original" and "Truthfulness of origins, attributions, commitments, sincerity, and intentions". Use of a pseudonym does not in itself compromise authenticity by these definitions. Rhoark (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC) "What I know to be true is that there are tens of thousands of people in Gamergate who value and welcome the contributions of women and have no desire to silence them or drive them out." Exactly what universe are you living in? Kaldari (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC) @Rhoark: Above, you said that there is also an ocean of untapped content at KotakuInAction. OK, let's examine what that content is. Right now, when I look at the front page of KotakuInAction, the top three stories are an AMA with someone who wrote a story in which a prominent Gamergate target is raped, a claim that a prominent Gamergate target tried to have someone killed and a Simpsons mashup mocking "social justice warriors." Is that what you mean by "a great deal of material about the membership, aims, and achievements of Gamergate that can and should be included in this article," then? Shall we add a section to the article noting that "According to posts on KotakuInAction, Gamergate is about talking with a person who wrote an erotica featuring the rape of one of Gamergate's targets," as per your request? Somehow, I think you would be rather stridently opposed to that addition. The validity of KotakuInAction as WP:ABOUTSELF does not mean that everything appearing there is WP:DUE coverage in Wikipedia. Rhoark (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC) So what you are saying is that you want us to include material from KIA that portrays the movement in a positive light, but exclude material from KIA that portrays the movement in a negative light. That's what I figured you would say. You want to use Wikipedia as a platform for positive PR, and that's not what we're here for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC) No, that would not be WP:IMPARTIAL. Material that reflects badly on Gamergate would be equally valid if it fulfills the same WP:ABOUTSELF requirements, and a case can be made that inclusion is WP:DUE. Judgement of what is due is complex. Rhoark (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC) The current Gamergate outrage-sea-lioning target is Jimmy Wales (not a journalist, by the way), who apparently committed the cardinal sin of calmly telling a Gamergate supporter that their rallying cry is fatally tainted by harassment and that their total lack of organization is a vice, not a virtue. Besides Twitter, there are also a slew of threads on KIA and 8chan endlessly declaiming the "corruption" and "unethical behavior" of Jimmy Wales. This is not an aberration, but an easily-observable trend — say something negative about Gamergate or do something Gamergate doesn't like, and you instantly become the target of all manner of wild accusations and crazed, utterly-unfounded conspiracy theories. Let's be quite frank here: that sort of nonsense is precisely why literally nobody outside the Gamergate echo chamber takes you seriously. Here's the thing. You can proclaim all day long what you want people to think Gamergate is interested in. Unfortunately for the credibility of your proclamations, it's not at all difficult to examine what Gamergate is actually saying and doing, and what this says about how much interest Gamergate has in actual issues relating to journalism ethics as opposed to tendentious culture-warring. The conclusions of reliable sources are inescapable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC) I think the problem, when saying just what one group, whether it be Gamergate, or anyone in general, stands for; is you open yourself up for a great deal of conflicting views, and in many cases data. More so if you take the actions of a few to be representative of the whole. When I was growing up in the deep southern United States, I experienced a similar gross generalization in regards to how people behave and or act. There, the common thread when people discussed African Americans, was less about what good they did, and more about the actions of a few bad seeds. The overreaching belief being that "Because a minority of African Americans deal drugs, are criminals, or are not productive members of society; then the entire African American race is the same way." By suggesting that the actions of a few members of any movement, which, as I said could be any movement and not just Gamergate, are indicative of the greater whole, you move away from seeking the truth of whatever that group stands for, and move more into the realm of stereotyping and gross generalization. In the case of the wiki article, you move more in the direction of a biased statement/opinion, and further away from the facts. Whether you (meaning anyone in particular) as a person agree with what they claim that their stance is or not, the fact remains that such opinion has no place in an article that claims to be reporting the facts and or history of the events. Kitsunedawn (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC) This is a classic false equivalence, Kitsunedawn. Gamergate is not a human ethnicity based on fundamental personal characteristics. Rather, it is a loosely-affiliated political movement based around ideological goals and specific methodologies, which a person can choose to join or leave at any time. This means your analogy simply logically fails. It's a non-analogy. One cannot join or leave being an African-American, and the mere state of one's ethnicity can make no conclusion about the content of that person's character or their beliefs. Thus, making judgments about a person based upon their ethnicity is widely reviled and effectively deprecated. Being part of Gamergate is in no way analogous to the above situation. Affiliation with Gamergate is voluntary and self-selected, as with any political movement. When one proclaims themselves part of Gamergate, they are explicilty standing with and behind the actions of Gamergate. That is literally what it means to be part of a movement. The actions of Gamergate, as widely noted in reliable sources, have involved numerous false allegations, vicious personal attacks, vile harassment, bandwagon-jumping men's rights activists and fringe conservative figures, and all other manner of essentially unconstructive nonsense. When you wave a flag that says Gamergate, you're saying that you believe in, and implicitly endorse, those activities. That's what being part of a movement means. If I stood on a street corner and waved a flag that said "WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH," you would probably think me a homophobe. And you would be perfectly justified in doing so. I've just publicly proclaimed that I'm a part of an organization known worldwide for homophobic nuttery. Well, frankly, that's about the point Gamergate is now. The name is permanently tainted and poisonous, identified not with any "journalism ethics" issues but with toxic harassment and a misogynistic fringe. And the only way forward — if you really care about journalism ethics, that is — is to abandon the name and find something else to identify yourself by. As umpteen dozen outside observers have suggested over the last four months, set up a non-profit advocacy group that discusses video game journalism — staff it with identifiable people in leadership roles, have an elected board of directors to make decisions, put together a unified platform of realistic goals and reject crazy fringe bullshit, develop a code of ethics for gaming journalism, etc. That's the way forward to have a meaningful impact on video game journalism — not calling Jimmy Wales names on Twitter and whining about "social justice warriors" on Reddit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Thank you for sharing your opinion, but as it does not pertain to the editing policies that are the cause of this thread, I will not engage further than to say you are welcome to deploy reliable sources to support your apprehension of the truth. Prepare yourself to accept graciously that the article will include reliable sources of another apprehension of the truth. Rhoark (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC) As you are apparently new to Wikipedia, you may wish to familiarize yourself with our reliable sourcing policies, and you may wish to refer any disputed sources to an open discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, which is a community hub for discussion and consensus-building around the acceptability of sources for various claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC) The text of the policies are sufficiently clear in establishing what is and is not permissible use of a self-source. If you have concerns about a specific use of a specific source, the RSN would be an excellent resource for you to consult before performing any reverts. Rhoark (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Yes, they are QUITE clear. anonymous postings of self serving nature on a non official website are not even REMOTELY acceptable.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Anonymity of users on Reddit is relative and variable. Most (but not all) users are pseudonymous, but even then meet the criteria of being identifiable, reachable, and trackable that constitute non-anonymity. Reliability is always in a context; some posts will meet guidelines and others will not. Information that merely has a salutary effect on someone's reputation is not on that basis automatically self-serving. To be self-serving also entails a disregard for the welfare of others. Rhoark (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC) you really dont understand Wikipedia's reliability requirements at all, do you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC) I have supported my positions with specific policies and clear definitions. The opposition has been mostly emotive. Rhoark (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC) AHHH the ever present "gamergate supporters are objective and everyone else is emotional" gambit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC) You're still doing it, there. Rhoark (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Mommy mommy he's emoting on my objectivity!!!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Reddit is a forum, and forum posts are not reliable sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC) I was going to agree on these lines; because of the lack of any authority we can point to, nearly every self-published GG document has no sufficient authority to be even acceptable under SPS lines. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC) This has been thoroughly addressed. "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves". There are additional stipulations that have been noted. It is clear that not all, but some Reddit posts comply with the applicable guidelines. Rhoark (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC) If it was the case that a person that we know was the organizer of GG and were assured of his identity posting at Reddit, yes, that's acceptable per SPS. But we are talking posts of identity we don't know to any degree, so SPS cannot work here. That's the problem with the lack of organization around GG, they have no information we can source from them directly. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC) This is why care must be taken to ensure a particular citation meets all the stipulations placed on a self-source. Many or most will not, but it is not consistent with policy to determine that Reddit posts are categorically incapable of reliability in an appropriate context. Rhoark (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC) @Rhoark: There is also something that is slightly... odd about this article in particular. This is not an article on "The Gamergate Movement," and as such, items that might have been reliable and notable when talking about the movement itself may not be reliable and/or notable here. This article specifically is on the "Controversy" that surrounds Gamergate. I personally believe the article may need to be renamed or split into two separate articles, because it is trying at some points to be both. It attempts to define the "movement" and the "controversy" and it appears there are sides that have formed that have different definitions of both. Ries42 (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC) any "split" is unlikely to happen, the "movement" as such is non notable outside of the harassment it has generated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC) This is addressed in the root of this thread. The movement is not notable on the basis of harassment or media attention thereon, but is notable for its lasting effects, independently of harassment. Rhoark (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC) WP:PROVEIT the ONLY "lasting" effects are harassment related -setting back the image of gamers 15 years as socially incompetent misogynistic trolls, making recruitment of women into the gamesoftware business near impossible, public debates about how social media needs better defenses against harassment -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC) WP:NOTNEWS WP:NOTSCANDAL WP:LASTING. Preeminent lasting effects are the creation of 8chan, WAM getting involved in Twitter, financial losses and reorganization in Gawker Media, and issuance of new guidelines from the FTC. Even if you disagree with all that, WP:NNC Rhoark (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Even the evidence that you are pointing to verifies the harassment. 8chan minor imageboard only notable as the base from which harassment emanated, the financial hit to gawker is temporary as the advertisers have all returned, and WAM for godsake is there to monitor harassment on twitter!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Some of the lasting effects are consequences of harassment, but it is still not the harassment itself, nor the news coverage of the harassment, that causes the topic to be notable. Rhoark (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC) 8chan existed before GG anyway, and Gawker's revenues are up, and I know of no RS tying the FTC updating their website FAQ to gamergate, which is a pretty minor thing, we'd need RS for all of this to put it into the article anyway, not forum posts. — Strongjam (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Sources are certainly needed. This discussion is laying the groundwork for their inclusion. Rhoark (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC) There is no "groundwork" to be laid for Reddit posts being acceptable sources in this article. Not going to happen. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC) I'm... confused. Why do you care @NorthBySouthBaranof:, @TheRedPenOfDoom:? I'm not saying I completely agree with Rhoark, but why not just let him do his own thing. If he can support the notability of the movement, let him. If he can't, then he can't. Certainly you aren't suggesting that if something could be notable, you should ignore it, correct? I think we all can see that the controversy surrounding Gamergate may be more notable than the movement, but that doesn't mean the movement couldn't be notable beyond that. Ries42 (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC) If in some fantasy never never land where the "movement" actually does something that is noted beyond its harassment sure, it could have an article then; and if ifs and buts were candy and nuts we would all have a Merry Christmas. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Well how can you personally determine whether something is notable? Do you have a crystal ball that you're not sharing with the class? Have you personally determined what is or is not going to be in this article? Why don't you stop biting and let Rhoark try to build his case, and once he's done, we can all as a group determine if his contribution proves there is WP:Notability. Surely, this is a contentious issue, so we need to keep an open mind. Ries42 (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Anyone is welcome to present reliable sources here. Anonymous posts on Internet forums are categorically not reliable sources. Please see the verifiability policy, one of Wikipedia's five pillars. You can present non-reliably-sourced information here for consideration (so long as it doesn't violate BLP or other core policies), but do not expect that non-reliably-sourced information is going to be acceptable in the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC) You're not making many people feel welcome. Ries42 (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Many people are not presenting reliable sources, but rather long screeds that categorically misinterpret/misrepresent policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Industry condemnation is misleading at best at worst outright lies

The section titled industry condemnation isn't focussed on Gamergate but more general harassment. None of the statements made were directed at or specified Gamergate. As such their inclusion in this article is in fact pure speculation. As has been said multiple times Wikipedia should not be seen to be the source of truth as said by WP:truth as such said statements by Blizzard and ESA do not belong here and should be moved to either Sexism in video gaming or made into part of a separate article Harassment in video gaming. Dwavenhobble (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

source please. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

source please thatsaid statement was about Gamergate and not simply an interpretation of said statements. However I can provide this

"not mentioning the Gamergate name directly" so as such claiming it is connected to Gamergate in would be creating a truth and reading in an implication which was not explicitly stated. Unless I am hugely mistaken here Wikipedia requires solid proof said statements are about gamergate not solid proof they are not about gamergate otherwise you are asking people to disprove creationism Dwavenhobble (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The sources given in that section all reference gamergate. — Strongjam (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This connection exists as per reliable sources. PC Gamer, Though Morhaime didn't specifically say "GamerGate," he notes that this has been occurring "over the past couple of months," making it entirely clear that he's referring to the Twitter hashtag which has, since August, represented a campaign ostensibly meant to fight for ethics in games journalism. The fact that external reliable sources make the interpretation allows us to do so as well. What is prohibited on Wikipedia is original synthesis — that is, a new conclusion not found in reliable sources. It is not prohibited — in fact, it is categorically allowed — to report that a secondary source has made a particular synthesis. That is precisely what secondary sources do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If a secondary source makes the synthesis, then it can be cited. Not all online harassment, even since August 2014, has been related to the Gamergate hashtag. The presented article does not say that Morihame was speaking with Gamergate in mind. Claiming that the secondary source meant to imply the primary source was thinking about Gamergate is original research. This is material that belongs at Sexism in video gaming, but not here. Rhoark (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Er, no. The sources cited in the section all discuss the connection to Gamergate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok Then by said reasoning we must therefore edit the 2014 World cup article to include the North Korean media version of events stating that North Korea made it to the final. again as you say it is up to media to determine truth and if that is the case then the North Korean Media has as much right as any other considering it is their national media. Unless of course you would like to suggest media may have a bias and that medias own interpretation is not absolute truth. Remember WP:VNT states that the information must be verifiable. So I put it to you can you categorically verify that the ESA and Blizzard statements are about gamergate or are you taking original unverifiable research presented in articles as truth. If you choose the latter I will edit the 2014 world cup page according to these same standards as new requirements of media = truth. If however you cannot verify said statements were specifically about gamergate by providing a verifiable source not media speculation then said statements being present here as fact are not accurate. At best should be moved more appropriate locations at worst should be properly noted as the unverified media speculation that they or in similar vain any media rumour and speculation should also be reported as fact here. I'm sure you can understand how damaging such claims would be Dwavenhobble (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Your example of NK media is flawed, as we don't consider them WP:RS. If you don't think the statement is supported by the sources then WP:RSN is the place to take it. All that matters per WP:VNT is in Wikipedia's sense, material is verifiable if it can be directly supported by at least one reliable published source. — Strongjam (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And my second example of the events surrounding Christopher Jefferies ? Said events were reported by reliable sources and turned out not to be true. Also from WP:RSN "we need to know which source (i.e. specific article, not just publication)" Just because a single publication is seen as reliable doesn't mean that a specific article is and as such said articles must meet WP:VNT rules which unless someone can show the ESA or Blizzard directing the comments at gamergate and not simply it being implied via secondary source articles without verifiability then it cannot be considered truth on Wikipedia. Dwavenhobble (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

We are not truth finders, and it is verifiable, reliable sources have said it. That's what matters for WP:VNT. If you don't think these are reliable sources, or that the statements aren't supported by reliable sources then WP:RSN is where you can argue that. — Strongjam (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

So by the same right we should have written at the time on Wikipedia that Christopher Jefferies was guilty of murder ? as you say we are not truth finders but the truth must be verifiable. It is not in these articles. As has been said previously by others in other wikipedia areas as stated by me prior. the publication itself should not be considered entirely reliable on it's own but the article in question is the source not the publication itself. So therefore said articles must be subjected to WP:VNT and not report rumour or speculation as fact. Dwavenhobble (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Not only should we have, but we did. (Reported him as being arrested, that is. We would only report someone as guilty if they were actually found guilty.) Of course, when the reliable sources reported otherwise, we changed the article. Woodroar (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Verifiable here does not mean that the reader can verify the truth of the statement, but rather that they can verify that it is in a reliable source. We do not get to do original research and question if the reliable source is right. Also in your example WP:BLPCRIME would also guide the editors, but does not apply here. — Strongjam (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Non-neutrality in section titles

Renaming section titles to push a point of view, such as "Ethics Concerns" to "Alleged and debunked ethics concerns" is an unacceptable breach of neutrality. It is not relevant whether the preponderance of secondary sources takes a particular view. The requirement for WP:IMPARTIAL is not waived. There are already sections dedicated to rebuttals of Gamergate claims. To insert judgement in the very title of the section where the claims are first presented is a particularly galling example of WP:HOWEVER. @NorthBySouthBaranof and @TheRedPenOfDoom have been reverted several times on this matter, with reasons provided. They and any others are called to present their case for discussion here and refrain from these types of edits in the meantime. Assistance will be appreciated in policing the neutrality of section titles while the matter is discussed. Rhoark (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Stating that there are "ethics concerns" is similarly a violation of neutrality, as it presents the claims as legitimate without noting that mainstream reliable sources have entirely rejected them and view them as not actually having any merit or credibility. Which is why the section title previously stated "Debate over legitimacy of ethics concerns," presenting the matter as a subject of debate between two sides. You are the one who made the section title non-neutral by removing the description of those claims as debated and disputed. If you are willing to return to the longstanding consensus section title, Debate over legitimacy of ethics concerns, I have no problem with that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"Debate over legitimacy of ethics concerns" would be a better title than "Alleged and debunked ethics concerns". Weedwacker (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This is still weasel language designed to raise doubt about the legitimacy. "Ethical Concerns" is a neutral title not suggesting that the concerns are or are not legitimate. Rhoark (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that nobody outside Gamergate takes the ethics claims seriously means that we must present the claims in the context of the mainstream view of those claims — which is that they don't actually have anything to do with ethics. As per WP:GEVAL, we frame unaccepted minority viewpoints which have been rejected by mainstream sources in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The relation of majority and minority views must be established, but section titles are not the appropriate place to do so. Nor is there any appropriate place for the article to take a side on the issue, even if it is the majority one. The way to avoid false balance with a significant minority is allocation of proportional space. Rhoark (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

We are writing an article about a controversy, part of which involves significant debate and discussion about the validity of a particular set of claims, with the broad consensus of reliable sources being that they have no legitimacy. Hence, the section title presents the issue as a debate within the broader Gamergate controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If the section is describing a debate within the majority viewpoint rather than between the majority and minority, the requirement for due weight to the minority is still in effect. A new section treating the minority view in a purely descriptive fashion would need to be created, and its contrast with the majority view explained. Much of the identity section and the response sections would belong better as an internal debate of the majority also, if that's what the section is. Rhoark (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

We would also have to return the structure in which the claims were presented in the context of mainstream sources, as per the due weight policy, because that presented the debate between the two sides. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No "Ethics concerns" under a section about the GG hashtag/movement is not a violation of neutrality, because we are only stating that they have ethics concerns. It neither justifies that they are legitimate concerns that can be acted on, or criticizes them as inactionable as the press as done. The body has plenty of room for the later aspects. Stating "Alleged and debunked ethics concerns" is a major violation of neutrality policy because that is taking the side of the media, which we cannot take. --MASEM (t) 21:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

contrary to your repeated claims, the media is not a "side". they are our sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the specific source that labels the concerns as "debunked"? Preferably one that uses the word. Ries42 (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I was coming here to say just this, as the section itself doesn't appear to show any debunkings at all, at worst just some disagreements as to whether certain situations are ethics concerns. I support going back to "ethics concerns" or, as a compromise, "Debate over legitimacy of ethics concerns." Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Most of the section is actually about the debate over their legitimacy, I think the title should reflect that. — Strongjam (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are a side in this. That doesn't mean they can't be our sources, but we have to separate their opinions from facts; it is clearly their opinion (and the predominate one) their ethics claims are bunk, but that's still an opinion WP cannot take. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The claims presented are that a professional journalists' e-mail list represented collusion and that a group of academics is conspiring with journalists because feminism, or something. We have half a dozen sources saying there was no collusion, and the only reliable source which bothered to cover the DiGRA claims described them as a conspiracy theory. So, well, yeah. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

All based on opinions and claims, and not yet proven by any normal methods we would accept something as WP. The court of public opinion is not where facts are determined. We can present all those findings as opinions, but they are only opinions and not facts. So no, we cannot state in WP's voice that these claims are debunked, only that the predominate sources believe they are. We must keep the fact that there are extremely few facts in the overall GG situation that we can state in a WP voice, short of the known accusations and harassment, and what the GG have self-claimed about themselves. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the original "Debate over legitimacy of ethics concerns" title while this gets debated. — Strongjam (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with NBSB, in so far that just Ethical Concerns may be non neutral. With that being said, 'Alleged and Debunked Ethical Concerns' is also very clearly non neutral. How about just 'Alleged Ethical Concerns'? It makes it clear that WP is not confirming the Ethical Concerns are legitimate, but it allows the sources to present the debate below without using non neutral language that begs the answer as "Debate of Legitimacy" may do. Ries42 (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The original title "Debate over legitimacy of ethics concerns" worked because that also is neutral, perhaps a bit weighted to the predominate view but more accurate of the section contents. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Its definitely closer to neutral, but it begs the answer before even asking the question. Its the word "legitimacy" that is the issue. If it just said "Debate over Ethical Concerns" it would be more neutral. If anything 'Alleged Ethical Concerns' I feel has the proper weight without begging the answer. Ries42 (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposing Debate over alleged ethics concerns as a mashup of what's been tossed about here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Using both "debate" and "alleged" together puts a double emphasis, but I'll agree it is better than using legitimacy. I'd prefer either Debate over Ethical Concerns or Alleged Ethical Concerns. Could you live with either of those NBSB? Ries42 (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I think Debate over alleged ethics concerns is best; the section is about the debate over them, and the concerns themselves are only alleged, so it's factual. --23:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that both 'debate' and 'alleged' give the same connotation, that the concerns are nonexistant. Whether or not that may be, unless we can say, for a fact that is the case, using both is giving too much emphasis that way. We can source that many reliable sources believe they are nonexistant, we have many opinions of reliable sources on that. The weight is clearly against the ethical concerns being legitimate. Having that weight in the title is appropriate. If we go too far though, we give the appearance of nonneutrality immediately though, instead of allowing the reader to view the reliably sourced opinions themselves, and then draw their own opinion on the legitimacy of the ethical concerns. Alleged or Debate alone does the trick. Using both makes it appear closer to a WP:Truth than a WP:Opinion (I have no idea if those are links or not) :). Ries42 (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that there has been no ethics violations presented and much of what is being fronted as "ethics issues" is not actually "ethics" at all, identifying it as the big nothingburger that it is, is NPOV compliant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Let it be noted that I am neither fooled nor impressed by the efforts to shuffle off balancing material into the far reaches in order to create a contiguous block of material for which the title "Misogyny and antifeminism" seems apt. Rhoark (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that the predominant description of Gamergate in reliable sources is in relation to misogynistic harassment and opposition to feminist and other social critiques of video games (e.g. [7], [8], [9], [10], etc. etc. etc.), this is in no way "unbalanced." That you disagree with the reliable sources' characterization of Gamergate is apparent. Your personal disagreement with the sources does not give license to ignore or dismiss their conclusions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the section was taken apart in Rhoark's rearrangement. After thinking about how that made the article parse, I thought it'd be best to put it back together in some form. Generally I don't think it makes sense to put all the comments from it into a 'media responses' section, since the reason we have so many quotes is to give a useful overview of GamerGate's politics as described by reliable sources; some quotes could be condensed or the general overarching tone of coverage could be summarized more briefly, but we need a section describing the politics behind GamerGate, and misogyny and antifeminism have (for the better or worse) been the focus of enough of that analysis to support a subsection. The main point is that the section needs to be clear and easy to read, giving the reader an overview of what reliable sources say about the politics involved, and I think that the current layout -- with one section for issues of Gamer identity and one for discussion of misogyny and antisemitism -- provides a much more clear picture of that than lumping them together. I do agree that the article reads better with the 'gamer identity' background moved to the politics section instead of having it as a slog before the main history; I just think it's important to separate the primary threads of how RSes cover GamerGate's political identity rather than lumping them together. --Aquillion (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

My attention at the moment is too divided at the moment to argue this in detail; however, by analogy to the opinions in the first half of this thread, given that the claims are contentious, and concern a group of living persons the section heading should be tempered to "Alleged misogyny and anti-feminism" Rhoark (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

1) BLP is about actual living identifiable people, not anonymous groups and so doesnt apply, 2) the sexism and anti-feminism are quite clear and quite well documented facts, so it is inappropriate to whitewash with "alleged" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

There is effectively no debate among reliable sources that misogyny and anti-feminism play a significant role in Gamergate. It is simply not a matter of dispute among the mainstream reliable sources documenting the issue. Therefore, while we should present any rebuttals that Gamergate has to offer, it is not a violation of NPOV to describe the views as involving "misogyny and anti-feminism." You may complain that this is not "equal" and that's probably correct. Wikipedia's policy does not require "equality" — as policy states, Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Whether you or I or anyone else agrees or not, the majority view of the issue indisputably describes Gamergate as involving a significant overt level of misogyny. It is a factual claim.

Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. There is no "bias" in writing, accurately, that Gamergate involves misogyny and anti-feminism, according to the overwhelming preponderance of mainstream reliable sources reporting and commenting on the controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict!) Yes, this. The characterization of misogyny and anti-feminism as part of the background to the controversy is not contentious among reliable sources, which is what we use to guide how we write articles. Based on the sourcing in that section, at least, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources agree that there is some misogyny and anti-feminism involved in the discussion; given that, and given that the section is about the general cultural background and tone of the dispute rather than allegations against specific people, qualifying it strikes me as both unnecessary and inappropriate. The ethics allegations, meanwhile, are primarily focused on specific living individuals and relate to specific claims that have been dismissed as false or trivial by the vast majority of reliable sources; therefore, they need to be qualified. (As an aside in that regard, it's important to note that BLP does not generally apply to descriptions of large, anonymous groups of people; it can apply when the group is so small that describing it functionally describes specific individuals, but given that GamerGate is both comparatively large and almost entirely anonymous it's hard to see how that concern applies. Even if it did, we can still describe things as fact when the overwhelming majority of reliable sources agree on them, which is the case here.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Preliminary collation of balancing sources

This is a non-exhaustive, unordered, and unannotated collection of sources that may potentially be useful for correcting the lack of due weight given to minority viewpoints in the article as it stands. The initial slate is primarily concerned with chronologically early aspects of the controversy. It is being presented here for several reasons: First, as a parking place for the material while I and perhaps other editors deliberate best how to to incorporate new material in the article. Second, for dissenters to identify sources whose reliability they find suspect prior to inclusion in the article proper. (Reliability can only be fully evaluated in context, so seeking an opinion from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard would be premature.) Finally, as an aid to fact-based debate about what positions can or cannot be supported by reliable third-party sources.

All entries are published by third parties with professional editorial and/or fact-checking procedures, and so provisionally fulfill the characteristics of a reliable source. It may be that some of these sources have a "a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest" causing the provisional extension of reliability to be rescinded. Those would be useful discoveries at this point. Some sources may only be reliable as a source of an attributed opinion.

Presenting an position that is "widely considered by other sources to be extremist" can be cause for considering something a questionable source; however, such determinations should be deferred for the time being. The division between unpopular and extremist is nuanced. Exclusion on such a basis can form a trap in which a significant minority consensus is not given a chance to gain a foothold against an incumbent majority consensus.

Sources are not required to be perfect. As per WP:BIASED, "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Finally, consider a the conclusion of /RFC1: "Here, the key is UNDUE and NPOV, which may mean we have to use some less reliable sources, but all for the benefit of the article in the longer term."

http://www.gameskinny.com/o3t09/depression-quest-dev-faces-extreme-harassment-because-shes-a-woman

(Redacted)

(Redacted)

(Redacted)

(Redacted)

http://techraptor.net/content/inside-gamejournopros-interview-william-oneal

(Redacted)

http://www.edge-online.com/news/why-the-co-creator-of-depression-quest-is-fighting-back-against-internet-trolls/

(Redacted)

(Redacted)

https://medium.com/message/72-hours-of-gamergate-e00513f7cf5d

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2014/10/11/gamergate-does-games-journalism-have-a-liberal-bias-problem/

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/gamergate-interviews/12390-Damion-Schubert-GamerGate-Interview

https://medium.com/@SvizraLion/everything-totalbiscuit-got-wrong-in-way-too-many-words-4df407e8113c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e78JRIHRjC0

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

Rhoark (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:UNDUE blogs and youtub ranters et al do not get "balanced" against PBS, The Guardian, BBC, Columbia Journalism Review, Washington Post, New York Times, Australian Broadcast Company etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

None of these are blogs. They all have professional editorial staff. WP:NOYT Youtube channels may be reliable secondary sources if they can be traced to a reliable publisher. Rhoark (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I have redacted the links which are obviously unreliable and make defamatory claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

None of the sources are self-published as claimed in your edit summary. Whether they are reliable and whether their claims are defamatory are at issue, and they should be available for discussion. Giving deference to the fact that they do concern living persons, I will leave reasonable time for you to make your case before restoring the links. Rhoark (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Restoring links to defamatory material in unreliable or self-published sources would be most unwise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Then its a good thing they are reliable third-party sources. Rhoark (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You would be wrong about that, and if you wish to find out from a broader community consensus just how unsuitable those sources are, the reliable sources noticeboard is thataway -->

We are an encyclopedia, not a scandalmongering compilation of scurrilous rumors, innuendo, smear campaigns and unsupported personal attacks. I suggest that you review WP:BLPGOSSIP, which dictates that Wikipedia editors must: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Or, as the policy explicitly dictates, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

My findings on applicable policy are the following. By WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE anyone wanting to restore material deleted on BLP grounds bears the burden of proof that the material complies with WP policy. According to WP:BLPTALK it is appropriate to present material of uncertain quality on a talk page for the purpose of discussing whether it is suitable for inclusion in an article. By this citation, burden of proof is fulfilled. I did not find any instance where guidelines are established for citing non-defamatory material from sources containing other material that is potentially defamatory. That is likely to be a fruitful subject on which to consult relevant review boards. As to what constitutes defamation, WP:LIBEL defers to Defamation, which states in the lede that defamation must be false and is usually "irrational unprovoked criticism which has little or no factual basis". Exact criteria vary by legal jurisdiction. To legally prove defamation in the United States, one "must prove that the statement was false, caused harm, and was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement." A variety of rationale for why a statement might not be defamatory are listed in Defamation#Other_defenses Rhoark (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Many of these have been discussed previously. At a glance:

• GameSkinny looks unreliable. I don't see any author or editor credentials. The staff details on the Contact Us link has a "former editor in chief" and "former staff editor", but no current information. I would consider all of that quick fails for the required "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
• TechRaptor looks slightly better, but still unreliable. I don't see any author credentials. Plus, having seen the content of their other stories, I seriously question their reliability and reputation.
• Edge Online appears to be part of Future Publishing, which includes Mac|Life and Gizmodo. Probably notable, although it's very odd there's no by-line on the article.
• The Medium article written by Andy Baio appears reliable to an extent: my understanding about Medium is that they are similar to the Forbes blogs, where there is little to no editorial control. We'd have to be careful about BLP claims, but I didn't notice any at first glance. The other Medium article is a pseudonym, so no.
• Bright Side of News has been discussed many, many times before. They accept anything. Not reliable in the slightest.
• The Escapist is a reliable source, but it's an WP:INTERVIEW. All the normal caveats apply.
• YouTube is not a reliable source, even videos by TotalBiscuit.

So really, there's not much here that's not already in the article. Certainly not enough to shift WP:DUE weight. Woodroar (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you; this is constructive. [situation with Medium is apparently complicated]. That will be one to bring to the review board. Policy on YouTube seems to be basically that the fact something is on YouTube is secondary to whether the video originates from what is otherwise a reliable third-party source. CynicalBrit is not only TotalBiscuit himself, but also an editorial staff. He has a reputation for issuing corrections and retractions. The others you have raised concerns about, I will look at more closely. Rhoark (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

To discuss the redacted links:

• GamesNosh has existed for fewer than 4 months. The article linked features no actual reporting, only uncritical third-hand repetition of something from a blog filtered through Twitter, and it makes unfounded claims which have since been proven false.
• Breitbart is a categorically-unreliable source for issues relating to living people. It has a reputation — a horrible one. As our article on the site helpfully points out, the outlet has a long history of publishing hoaxes, frauds and malicious falsehoods in service of its political goals.
• TechRaptor is unreliable as per Woodroar's comments above. No significant reputation.
• 8CN is a self-publishing platform which permits effectively anyone to sign up and post content, as their website makes plain. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Mindless Zombie Studios appears to exist solely to put forth a particular POV about Gamergate. No established reputation for reliability and fact-checking, and the owner states that by being the sole guy owning and running this site, and trying to make something of this site, I am exactly the sort of person that should care and be active. So I've decided to put my helmet on, and go to war for Gamergate. Yup, not what we're looking for in a reliable source.
• NicheGamer is an article which simply uncritically repeats anonymous interviews, many of which feature defamatory claims about living people. We don't repeat anonymous gossip, and such is unacceptable as a source.

As Woodroar noted above, there's no there, there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, that's helpful as well. With the addendum that uncritically repeating social media is also the mode of operation for a lot of what more established media is cited for in this article. That is essentially the value of their inclusion, as the real activity of the controversy is happening on social media, while our hands are tied by the need for secondary sources. Rhoark (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I would note that this search for high-quality sources cuts both ways, as a consensus has been reached that we will avoid citing oft-clickbaity sites such as Huffington Post and BuzzFeed, or Gawker sites except where they are used to source statements about the involvement of Gawker sites in the controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you seriously just redact a link to Breitbart as a BLP violation? Are we really going there?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Did I redact a link to a site that has a longstanding history of literally making shit up about people it doesn't like and intentionally editing videos to create fake scandals and hold people in a false light? You bet I did. There's a million and one reasons that we don't accept Breitbart-sourced claims, and it's helpfully right in our article about them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Dude, you are actively editing the article to make them look worse at the very same time that you are citing the Wikipedia article as a reason for why they are unreliable!--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

That's because Collect weakened the true description of the issue which I wrote a month ago when it occurred. Collect's description made it appear as if it was some minor inadvertent error when it is actually a blatantly false story where the "error" constitutes the entire article, as the reliable sources note. You don't write an entire story which says some person is actually a different person and then dismiss it as "oops we confused two people." They initially left the story up with a correction appended to the bottom which amounted to admitting the entire article was false. If you want me to add more sources noting how fundamentally awful of an error this is, and how this points to a catastrophic lack of anything resembling fact-checking or editorial control at Breitbart if it means they can try to score political points against their perceived opponents, I'll be happy to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a "true" description, first of all, because neither source states that the entire article was false, mainly because the entire article was not false. The headline and part of the piece was wrong, but other parts appear to be factually accurate. More importantly, you are editing the article on a source to make it seem less reliable and then using the content of the article to explain why we cannot use that source. Do you not see the problem with that?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, TDA, if you write an article that is headlined "Loretta Lynch, Barack Obama's attorney general nominee, represented Bill Clinton during the Whitewater scandal," and extensively claims the aforementioned falsehood, yes, we describe the entire article as false. The very premise of the article is invalid. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You're foruming about an entirely different article NorthBySouthBaranof, please stop. Bramble window (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If I may request, since you seem to have an issue with Breitbart, then you should take it to WP:RSN instead of using WP as a source for excluding it. Mistakes are always made, though if you feel that the mistakes and actions made by Breitbart are due to negligence or similar, then it would be easier to come to a decision there and not sniping here. The exclusion would likely have been ok, though I am concerned if the issue with Breitbart is due to Yiannopoulos. Either way, I believe that WP:RSN is the place for this and would recommend that if this becomes an issue that it be taken there to settle it. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to reopen such a debate if you wish. There's a longstanding consensus that it's unacceptable for living persons issues, and the burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate any change in that situation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As was said above, there's nothing about these sources that makes them noteworthy enough to include; using them would be giving them WP:UNDUE weight. WP:FRINGE specifically forbids using less noteworthy or lower-quality sources in order to 'balance out' an article. The basic fact is that while I know it's frustrating, Wikipedia's coverage is fundamentally governed by the consensus of the reputable mainstream media; if you feel that the mainstream media is biased on a specific subject, then you are always going to feel that the corresponding Wikipedia article is biased, because it's the nature of an encyclopedia to uncritically reflect the mainstream. Wikipedia is simply not the place to try and, as you put it, give a fringe viewpoint "a chance to gain a foothold against an incumbent majority consensus" -- that's just not what an encyclopedia is for. Gain a foothold for your point-of-view elsewhere and get the mainstream media to report on it, then we'll reflect that here. --Aquillion (talk) 06:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

There is one good point made here, that Breitbart's negative reliability and ability to be sourced shouldn't only have the wikipedia mainstream saying that it is. That's definitely conflicting with WP:NPOV and turns the fork onto Wikipedia. I did a quick search and could only find an answers.com where a user asked if Breitbart's site is reliable. The top response said no, and it's something I feel we know, but I feel like it would be easier to make the laughable few who do trust it to avoid fighting over whether or not there is truth to the statement by finding a reputable source that actually calls them out, regardless of neutrality. (As their mediums can say whatever they want. Just covering my bases for when someone tries to call out ambivalence.) What's that other news site that I've tried to purge from memory that posts all of the pictures of the photoshopped animals, like green cats, saying, "you won't believe this vitamin," or whatever? The real question is, on a scientific level and a neutral point of view, WP:NPOV, how can you flesh out the reason behind why Breitbart is not reliable without linking to articles cross referencing those with contradicting articles from legitimate publications? Also, I wanted to point out that it's hillarious that anyone could pretend there was a "mixup" on the two people and the site lingered. I know the publication process and how stressful being accurate and have your page perfect and correct is, as I've seen it first hand. An error like that doesn't linger, no. It's blatant fabrication.Chewbakadog (talk) 07:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Our definition of a reliable source is described in WP:RS. Breitbart, as far as I can tell, is almost a textbook example of a questionable source; putting aside whether it's generally-accepted as extremist, it unquestionably has a poor reputation for checking the facts. This means it cannot be used to source contentious claims about third parties. There is an important caveat, though -- reliability is based on the context, so a Breitbart opinion piece is, for instance, a reliable source on the opinion of the author, provided the significance of the author's views can be established using some other source. For example, we can cite Breitbart's Milo Yiannopoulos to illustrate his opinion in sections of the article that directly deal with him and accusations that he made, but only when we have cites from other sources as well to confirm that those accusations are relevant. --Aquillion (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight is not in the mere inclusion of a significant minority view, but in its presentation vis-a-vis more reputable sources. WP:DUE suggests a minority viewpoint may be a significant one if prominent adherents can be easily named. Via WP:FRINGE, "Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines." Gamergate ethics concerns fulfill notability guidelines in and of themselves, and notability is further confirmed by mainstream media attention irrespective of that attention being negative. As this is an article about a controversy, it relates to at least two points of view. By WP:DUE again, "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." Rhoark (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of TechRaptor, NicheGamer, and CynicalBrit

Based on the above discussion and WP policy I believe a case can be made that TechRaptor, NicheGamer, and CynicalBrit are reliable sources for certain uses and circumstances. They are third-party publishers. They have paid professional writers and editorial staff. They have demonstrably engaged in fact-checking and issued corrections. All explicit guidelines for reliability have been met, and no explicit criteria of a questionable source have been met. Although CynicalBrit publishes via YouTube, WP:NOYT makes exception for official channels of reliable publishers. TechRaptor and NicheGamer have published codes of ethics and privacy policies, which is above and beyond WP's expectations for a reliable source. These sources are unquestionably less established than the likes of the New York Times, but that is not the minimal threshold of reliability. WP:NEWSORG notes "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact", but that is a statement on the degree of reliability, not a prohibition of less established sources. Various editors, such as on notice boards and wiki project pages, have applied more stringent standards - including career history of the writers, or whether the source itself meets WP topic notability standards. These criteria, and any like them, are not endorsed by relevant policy pages, and using these opinions as precedents here is unwarranted. This is especially so in light of the concluding statement of /RFC1, which noted "Here, the key is UNDUE and NPOV, which may mean we have to use some less reliable sources, but all for the benefit of the article in the longer term."

As a non-exhaustive list of how these sources might be used:

1. What claims, themes, and opinions exist within the Gamergate controversy, as statements of fact
2. The level of agreement or support for various claims, themes, or opinions within Gamergate, as WP:INTEXT attributed opinions
3. Precise numerical data on how social media is used in the Gamergate controversy, as statements of fact.
4. Establishing noteworthiness and performing synthesis on statements in social media, as attributed opinions. (From WP:NEWSORG, "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true).")
5. Reviews of video games, particularly as pertaining to their gender portrayals, as attributed opinions
6. Summaries of aggregate trends in consumer or media responses to particular games, as statements of fact
7. Other statements of fact for which the source gives specific, verifiable evidence supporting the statement of fact. (This evidence need not itself come from a source eligible for citation on Wikipedia. That evidence be provided at all is not in general an onus placed on secondary sources in WP, but a special consideration given to allay concerns about reputability.)

Similar matters will no doubt be raised in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard; however appropriate use of the noticeboard is for supporting exact statements in an article. The discussion has not yet reached that level of specificity. Rhoark (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel as long as we use similar wording to other sources that are presenting opinions, and are sure to mention these are the opinions of the authors/publications, their inclusion should be fine. Ries42 (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Under Gamer identity, "hardcore gamer" means what?

I read the Gamer Identity section and it talks about "hardcore gamers" and just moves on. I was wondering if we should add any information that differentiates what a "hardcore" gamer actually is, apart from a normal gamer. Are we saying that "gamers" include the candy-crush players and mobile phone players? Are we saying hardcore is only streamers or tournament attendees? What are the parameters here? While I don't feel like this article would be a good spot for an entire discussion on it, maybe pointing readers in the direction of an article that does just that would be beneficial to the article as a whole. It seems like those who aren't well versed in the gamergate controversy are denied the chance of entering a discussion that they could be passionate about, but lack the vocabulary to contribute in this area specifically. I'd love to know what your thoughts on the matter is. Thanks, Complete turing (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

To a certain extent, disagreement over what the gamer identity means and how (or if) it's changing is at the core of much of the controversy, so I don't think we can just summarize it in any easy way. We do have a Gamer article, though (which briefly defines the terms you're asking about), so I've made sure the article links to that in appropriate places. --Aquillion (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, the "hardcore" gamer identity, is really limited to a small niche of gamers within the larger "Gamer" identity. I know, I know, that's rather vague, so I'll try to explain it as best I can. Basically, it works out like this: Casual gamers are those who really don't think much about the games they play, putting less than eight hours a week into their gaming. They aren't overly competitive, and don't care so much about the game mechanics; as much as having "fun." Average gamers fall somewhere in between Hardcore gamers and casual. They put in an average of nine to sixteen hours gaming, and while they do have some competitive nature to what they play, they still find their interests governed by what they determine as being fun. They're the type that often play Player V. Enemy type games, or primarily non competitive single player type games. Hardcore players are the polar opposite of Casual gamers, in that they care less about having "fun" at the game, and more about their standing when compared to other gamers. They are the ones that spend the most time at the game, who work hardest to get the highest rank, level, or the best "gear" (as defined by mmorpg standards.) They also tend to be the most competitive, and to some degree, the most offensive? I suspect I'm using the wrong word there, but they're the ones that will scream "Faggot" and various racial slurs into open channels as they play. I hope that answers some of the question. Though I'm just a simple writer, if you want to quote me on that, feel free. Kitsunedawn (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

While the most competitive gamers are probably hardcore, I disagree that competitiveness is a key determinant of being hardcore. Those who spend hundreds of hours in games like Skyrim or Minecraft, and go on to create game mods and fanfic, are undoubtedly hardcore gamers. Rhoark (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The visibility of the "page protected" icon

[11] Can we please not edit war over this?

And those coming to say it should be visible (I see threads at KIA that mention this), the icon does not mean the page's contents are disputed, necessarily, it means the page is protected in some degree from editing. We don't need the icon visible to show, as per the above edit that the page is "disputed", based on the results of the POV tag issue a few months ago. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As an outsider to this who has taken interest ever since the whole Ryulong drama started (you know, with him making a list of 20+ accounts and trying to get them all banned for being "SPAs"), it seems to me like the article is under dispute for good reason. There is an ArbCom going on, and there is constant arguing over the contents of the article. It seems to me that there is no good reason to try and hide that fact by removing the banner and making it a tiny lock icon. Because the general public would not even notice that, and assume the article itself is otherwise 100% factual and that it represents a neutral point of view. What purpose is there in hiding that banner, when we've got the "this article contains too many quotes" banner with no issue? DarknessSavior (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact the template is called "pp-dispute" does not mean that the article is necessarily disputed, just that it is page protected. And there has been a previous discussion about having a POV notice on the page, but the general agreement is that the issues that the POV tag is meant to address are not the type that this article has to keep that POV tag in place. I personally am in agreement there are still some disputed issues, but that lock icon is not a thing to edit war or try to manipulated based on past consensus; that is not the Wikipedia way of doing things. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

In this case the specific wording would be "Because the article has been the target of relentless vandalism , unregistered editors cannot edit."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Masem, do you have any source for the claim that "the general agreement" statement you made? I just glanced over the last two archives of the talk page and could find no such thing. And if two editors are here saying that we disagree with that, clearly there's at least a few people who disagree and there might be more.DarknessSavior (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)