Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Sanctions enforcement

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

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

Lead is too long

Per WP:LEADLENGTH, the lead should be at most 4 reasonably sized paragraphs. LK (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I could not agree more. I tried, many moons ago, to curtail the sprawling lead, but I was unsuccessful (to be fair, my efforts were not great). Anyway, perhaps now that the heat seems to have died down a bit, maybe it's time to try again. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

How about: "The Gamergate controversy concerns issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture, stemming from a harassment campaign. Supporters of the Gamergate movement targeted several women in the video game industry. Gamergate has often been defined by the harassment its supporters have committed. Gamergate is often viewed as a right-wing backlash against progressivism. Industry responses to Gamergate have been predominantly negative. Gamergate has led figures both inside and outside the industry to focus on better methods of tackling online harassment." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I, for one, approve. We could also go with "For sale: Journalistic Ethics manual. Never opened." Dumuzid (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Artw (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dumuzid, Artw, and Lawrencekhoo: "The Gamergate controversy concerns issues of sexism and progressivism, stemming from an online harassment campaign which used the #gamergate hashtag. Supporters of the Gamergate movement targeted several people in the video game industry, most notably Zoë Quinn, Brianna Wu, and Anita Sarkeesian. Gamergate has been most defined by the harassment its supporters have committed. Gamergate is often viewed as a right-wing backlash against progressivism. Industry responses to Gamergate have been predominantly negative. Gamergate has led figures both inside and outside the industry to focus on better methods of tackling online harassment." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD allows for 4 paragraphs as normal, for an article of this size. I would rather have a longer lead which rambles a bit than a shorter lead which can be accused of oversimplification or something. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kindsindian: what would you suggest adding back? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I tend to think something along these lines is probably what's best. While the article has a lot of blow-by-blow detail, I think the general outlines of the thing can be limned fairly easily (as I think ForbiddenRocky has shown). I might suggest that instead of referring to "supporters" we talk about "those using the hashtag" or some such, just to avoid some of the old familiar pitfalls. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

outdent

@Dumuzid, Artw, Lawrencekhoo, and Kingsindian: "The Gamergate controversy concerns issues of sexism and progressivism, stemming from an online harassment campaign which used the #gamergate hashtag. Gamergate has been most defined by the harassment its supporters have committed. Users of the #gamergate hashtag targeted several people in the video game industry, most notably Zoë Quinn, Brianna Wu, and Anita Sarkeesian. Gamergate is often viewed as a right-wing backlash against progressivism. Industry responses to Gamergate have been predominantly negative. Gamergate has led figures both inside and outside the industry to focus on better methods of tackling online harassment." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dumuzid, Artw, Lawrencekhoo, and Kingsindian: "The Gamergate controversy concerns issues of sexism and progressivism, stemming from an online harassment campaign which used the #gamergate hashtag. Gamergate has been most defined by this harassment. Users of the #gamergate hashtag targeted several people in the video game industry, most notably Zoë Quinn, Brianna Wu, and Anita Sarkeesian. Gamergate is often viewed as a right-wing backlash against progressivism. Industry responses to Gamergate have been predominantly negative. Gamergate has led figures both inside and outside the industry to focus on better methods of tackling online harassment." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Prettty much a perfect one paragraph encapsulation, and vastly better than what we have now. Artw (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I have stated my opinion already: the lead should be 4 paragraphs. There's absolutely no need to compress everything into one paragraph. The lead right now is a bit bloated; some of the paragraphs could be merged or some content could be cut. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Not particularly seeing the need for more paragraphs - the level the bar for inclusion in the lede is set at here seems about right - I would suggest that any future inclusions be vetted to see that they clear that bar. As for the current lead merely being a bit bloated but otherwise fixable, I would thoroughly disagree: it's an unreadable mess that makes the subject seem unduely complicated, and it needs to go. Artw (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize the article. There are six sections in the article, and six paragraphs in the lead. I am not sure what kind of standard for "bar for inclusion" you are setting. For instance, the current lead gives the Gamergate POV "it is about ethics in video game journalism" while simultaneously giving reactions dismissing it as self-serving and a pretence. But the proposed lead does not even mention the point. Similarly, the anonymity, diffuse nature and the use of various platforms (Twitter, Reddit, IRC, 4chan) etc. is not mentioned in the proposed lead. I come back to my original point: why is it necessary to compress the lead so drastically? As for the lead being an unreadable mess: well the article itself is an unreadable mess. Why would the lead be any different? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:

• re: "the current lead gives the Gamergate POV "it is about ethics in video game journalism" while simultaneously giving reactions dismissing it as self-serving and a pretence" that perhaps could be included in some concise way for the lede, though I don't know how. Perhaps you have an idea? But it seems that it needs way more explanation than appropriate for the lede.
• re: "the use of various platforms (Twitter, Reddit, IRC, 4chan)" Would noting that various platforms were used address this concern? As the list cannot be comprehensive in the lede, a concise summary is preferred over a partial list.
• re: "the anonymity, diffuse nature" as they are covered in more depth in the main article - are the anonymity and diffuse nature particularly necessary in the lede? Is that something someone looking at a summary would be interested in? It seems a bit detailed
• re: "why is it necessary to compress the lead so drastically?" I don't know it's necessary, but it's somewhere to start. What would you add back in particular?
• re: "Why would the lead be any different?" because it can be better

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I am saying that it's better to start with the current lead and remove or condense stuff (if required), rather than starting with a brand new, extremely condensed, one paragraph version of what you think the lead should be. The latter is a dead end, in my view; people can differ on that. While we were talking, some random person simply merged a couple of paragraphs to make the lead 4 paragraphs. It was rather funny to me, but one can do a somewhat similar thing, if not exactly the same thing. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Concur with Kingsindian here. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article; the proposed text does not (failing to cover sections 3 & 4 at all). Additionally, it is unclear as to what is meant by Gamergate in the second and later sentences. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Every sentence I started with at first came from the current lede. I've since been making changes per suggestions that can be acted on. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDE - "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." - every aspect of the aticle does not require it's own bulletpoint in the lede, which seems to be the current philosophy. I would say that while Gamergate goes off in a lot of directions fast, as the length of the articles and it's talk pages testify, it's actual core is pretty simple and the lede should summarize that concisely. Artw (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure it will surprise precisely no one that I agree with Artw. While there is a surfeit of detail here, the broad strokes of the narrative (for lack of a better term) are not overly complicated. As Artw notes, we don't have to have a 1:1 correlation between lead and body. Thanks all. Dumuzid (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

outdent 2

@Dumuzid, Artw, Lawrencekhoo, Kingsindian, and Ryk72: re: Additionally, it is unclear as to what is meant by Gamergate in the second and later sentences.

"The Gamergate controversy concerns issues of sexism and progressivism, stemming from an online harassment campaign which used the #gamergate hashtag. The Gamergate controvery has been most defined by this harassment. Users of the #gamergate hashtag targeted several people in the video game industry, most notably Zoë Quinn, Brianna Wu, and Anita Sarkeesian. The Gamergate controversy is often viewed as a right-wing backlash against progressivism. Industry responses to the Gamergate controversy have been predominantly negative. Gamergate has led figures both inside and outside the industry to focus on better methods of tackling online harassment." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

(note: I'm going to stop pinging people at this point.) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

starting with the original lede

re: "I am saying that it's better to start with the current lead and remove or condense stuff"

The Gamergate controversy concerns issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture, stemming from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate. Gamergate is used as a blanket term for the controversy, the harassment campaign and actions of those participating in it, and the loosely organized movement that emerged from the hashtag.

Beginning in August 2014, supporters of the Gamergate movement targeted several women in the video game industry, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, as well as feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian. After a former boyfriend of Quinn wrote a lengthy disparaging blog post about her, other people falsely accused her of entering a relationship with a journalist in exchange for positive coverage and threatened her with assault and murder. Those endorsing the blog post and spreading such accusations against Quinn organized themselves under the Twitter hashtag #Gamergate, as well as on Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channels and websites such as Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan. Harassment campaigns against Quinn and others were coordinated through these forums and included doxing, threats of rape, and death threats. Many of those organizing under the Gamergate hashtag argue that they are campaigning against political correctness and poor journalistic ethics in the video game industry, while numerous commentators have dismissed Gamergate's purported concerns with ethics and condemned its misogynistic behavior.

Most Gamergate supporters are anonymous, and the Gamergate movement has no official leaders, spokespeople, or manifesto. Statements claiming to represent Gamergate have been inconsistent and contradictory, making it difficult for commentators to identify goals and motives. As a result, Gamergate has often been defined by the harassment its supporters have committed. Some Gamergate supporters have attempted to dissociate themselves from misogyny and harassment, but their attempts have often been dismissed as insincere and self-serving.

The controversy has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over cultural diversification, artistic recognition, and social criticism in video games, and over the social identity of gamers. Many supporters of Gamergate oppose what they view as the increasing influence of feminism on video game culture. As a result, Gamergate is often viewed as a right-wing backlash against progressivism. Gamergate supporters claimed collusion between the press and feminists, progressives, and social critics. These concerns have been dismissed by commentators as trivial, conspiracy theories, groundless, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics. Such concerns led users of the hashtag to launch email campaigns targeting firms advertising in publications of which they disapproved, asking them to withdraw their advertisements.

Industry responses to Gamergate have been predominantly negative. The Entertainment Software Association and Sony Computer Entertainment have condemned Gamergate harassment. Intel, which temporarily withdrew its advertisements from gaming news site Gamasutra as the result of a Gamergate email campaign, later pledged $300 million to support a "Diversity in Technology" program.

Gamergate has led figures both inside and outside the industry to focus on better methods of tackling online harassment. U.S. Representative Katherine Clark from Massachusetts has campaigned for a stronger government response to online harassment, gaining the support of Congress. Within the industry, organizations such as the Crash Override Network and the Online Abuse Prevention Initiative have been founded to provide support to those facing online harassment.

1. Some the places where Gamergate is used might better be replaced with Gamergate controversy or "this controversy" or "this harassment campaign".
2. Of special note: I recommend removing anything that is of the form "<claim X>, but <claim X> is considered otherwise".

• Is there anything that needs to be added back? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I would say pretty much everything struck out should be added back. They are all elaborations of important points. The lead gives little or no indication of the "controversy" in the "Gamergate controversy". It is fine to give the viewpoint of the GG supporters and rip it to shreds, as the current lead does. It is another thing to not mention the viewpoint altogether; the reader then wonders what on Earth the flap was all about. The harassment is the most notable aspect of Gamergate, no question about it; but it is not the only aspect. In the highly condensed lead, the political and cultural issues are not given enough space; nor is the anonymous, diffuse nature of the platforms, activity and supporters.

I don't know how many times I can keep repeating these points; so I'll just stop. People can differ on this point; I've given my own viewpoint. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I actually somewhat agree with Kingsindian here -- I am fine leaving elaborations to the body, but I think we need an "actually, it's about ethics in game journalism" sentence in the lead somewhere. Perhaps after the sexism/progressivism sentence, something along the lines of "Users of the hashtag commonly claimed to be interested in advancing ethics in video game journalism," or something along those lines? Thanks for the work, FR. Dumuzid (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

with add backs

The Gamergate controversy concerns issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture, stemming from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate. Gamergate is used as a blanket term for the harassment campaign, the loosely organized movement around the hashtag, and the controversy.

Users of the Gamergate hashtag targeted several women in the video game industry, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, as well as feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian. Most Gamergate hashtag user are anonymous, and the loosely organized movement had no official leaders, spokespeople, or manifesto. Statements claiming to represent Gamergate were inconsistent and contradictory, making it difficult for commentators to identify goals and motives. As a result, Gamergate was most defined by the harassment its supporters have committed. Many of those using the Gamergate hashtag argue that they were campaigning against political correctness and poor journalistic ethics in the video game industry, while numerous commentators have dismissed Gamergate's purported concerns with ethics and condemned its misogynistic behavior.

Industry responses to Gamergate have been predominantly negative. Gamergate has led figures both inside and outside the industry to focus on better methods of tackling online harassment. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The Gamergate controversy concerns issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture, stemming from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate. Gamergate is used as a blanket term for the harassment campaign, the loosely organized movement around the hashtag, and the controversy.

Users of the Gamergate hashtag targeted several women in the video game industry, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, as well as feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian. Most Gamergate hashtag user are anonymous, and the loosely organized movement had no official leaders, spokespeople, or manifesto. Statements claiming to represent Gamergate were inconsistent and contradictory, making it difficult for commentators to identify goals and motives. As a result, Gamergate was most defined by the harassment its supporters have committed. Many using the Gamergate hashtag argued that they were campaigning against political correctness and poor journalistic ethics in the video game industry, while numerous commentators dismissed Gamergate's purported concerns with ethics and condemned its misogynistic behavior.

Industry responses to Gamergate was predominantly negative. Gamergate led figures both inside and outside the industry to focus on better methods of tackling online harassment.

q: should more be added back? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph about politics and culture in the lead isn't described adequately. Namely the paragraph: "The controversy has been described ... withdraw their advertisements". The "gamer" identity, cultural diversification in video games, feminism, right-wing, progressivism, social criticism of games etc.; these are all important aspects of the phenomenon. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that's covered by the summary in the first sentence. Those are important details better left for the main article. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Make an "edit" to my proposal. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

There are many problems with the proposal. To put some distance between the topic, let's conduct an experiment. Look at the lead for some other, roughly similar phenomena and see what they say. I'll take three: First Intifada, Black Lives Matter and Tea Party Movement. I note the following things: (a) general idea, basic overview (b) Triggering event: (traffic accident in refugee camp in the case of First Intifada; acquittal of the shooter of Trayvon Martin, shooting of Michael Brown and Eric Garner in the case of BLM; protests against aid to bankrupt homeowners in the case of Tea Party). (c) what ideologies, principles etc. were involved, what sort of activities happened, any major players etc. (d) Criticisms, reception, praise etc. (e) Lasting impact, follow ups, influence on other events etc. The order of things can be moved around to make the lead relatively concise and coherent, but all those things should be given enough space in the lead.

The proposed lead is deficient in these respects:

(a) The trigger Zoepost is not mentioned or even alluded to. (b) Ideologies, principles etc. are given very little space. (c) Lasting impact is also given little space. I saw tons of news stories in 2016 connecting all kinds of things to Gamergate: Alt-right, misogyny, technology, Trump, feminism, online harassment, white supremacy, Berniebros etc. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

For my money, the nebulous and atomized nature of this "movement" make analogies not particularly useful, but I am sure others' opinions will differ. I think the proposed lead is pretty good, and am, as ever, all for leaving detail to the body of the article. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

For my money, the nebulous and atomized nature of this "movement" is overblown, and is no different from the nebulous and atomized nature of all (hashtag activism) movements. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

1) The Zoe Post is covered in detail in the main article (and it is a sub part of the harassment of Zoe Quinn, and she is mentioned in the lede). 2) First Intifada, Black Live Matter, and TPM were not primarily harassment campaigns. 3) the ideologies and ethical concerns are mentioned in the lede (argue that they were campaigning against political correctness and poor journalistic ethics), and in detail debunked in the article. 4) Reception: is in the last section (predominantly negative). 5) lasting impacts also mentioned (dealing with harassment) 6) most of the 2016 stuff hasn't been added to the main article (therefore would not summarize the article if included in the lede). ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The ideologies and ethical concerns are ... in detail debunked in the article. is a bug, not a feature. We should not be debunking anything ourselves; we should be documenting what reliable sources have said. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Would agree with Dumuzid and ForbiddenRocky on all points. Artw (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I think Kingsindian's comments have been addressed. Unless there are any more substantive issues to address, I'm going to make this live at some point. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think my comments have been addressed; but that's irrelevant, since I'm only one person and can be overruled if appropriate. All the people who are in favour of the current proposal were in favour of the original one paragraph proposal as well. The lead is the major part of the article, so I would prefer an RfC to get a broad consensus, instead of relying on a few people who watch this talkpage. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree that the concerns raised by both Kingsindian and (to a far lesser extent) I have not been substantively addressed. I have broader concerns, about both the proposal and the existing lead section; but am currently time poor to articulate these. A short version covering some concerns, however, is: Core issue that the proposal does not cover substantial sections of the article must be resolved. Several sentences in both proposal and current say nothing, and appear to be included only as well pissing. Information is unsourced, and not tied to sourced content in the body; or sourced to opinion tier sources, but included as fact. The "Gamergate movement", which is in a majority of sources which cover the controversy comprehensively, is downplayed. The "harassment campaign" (organised harassment as opposed to generalised harassment) which is in a minority of sources is overplayed. The lead fails to mention both TZP and (more importantly?) the "Death of Gamers" articles. The language used fails to satisfy WP:NPOV. And fundamentally, we fail to say what the "controversy" (prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion) was about; but to do so we'd need to clearly & fairly state what the stated aims of the Gamergate movement were, so... - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Make specific edit proposals. 1) "Information is unsourced" I don't know how many times this has been covered, but sourcing is not necessary for the lede. 2) "Gamergate movement" is specifically mentioned in the lede. 3) "harassment campaign" is actually in very many sources, and that harassment was the big thing was the one of the resulting comments from the last RFC. 4) "fail to say what the "controversy" (prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion) was about" that's what the main article is for; the lede is summary. 5) "The language used fails to satisfy WP:NPOV" This again? 6) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The specific answers: 1). I don't know how many times this has been covered, but per WP:V All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. and WP:LEADCITE The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. ... information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. That's not even remotely equivocal. We don't get to include unverified information in the lead; we don't get to include original research in the lead. 2). "Downplayed" is not "Omitted". 3). Which RfC? "Harassment" is not "Harassment campaign", "Big" is not "Only". And, to be fair, WP:AGF has long since moved past accepting unsupported assertions of what's in very many sources at face value. It's going to need to be demonstrated. 4). What? Seriously? We should have an article on a thing and fail to explain what that thing is in the lead section? Hrm... No. 5). This always; because WP:5P. Unless someone wants to run an RfC to change WP:NPOV to remove WP:IMPARTIAL it's still going to be a core policy, and it's still going to need to be followed. 6). ?
If I were to make a specific proposal, it would be that we draft something along the lines outlined above by Kingsindian from their inspection of First Intifada, BLM & Tea Party Movement and see who salutes; I would also suggest that they and perhaps Koncorde might be best placed to build such a draft. I am happy to assist.
Apart from that, editors are well within their rights to reject the proposed lead change outright and to refuse to engage with it further. To speak plainly, it is all bathwater and not much baby. RfC or BUST. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC) On reflection, that's perhaps a little uncharitable; the removal of the specific examples in the last two paragraphs is all baby; suggest also collapsing those into a single sentence. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I do realise that the assertions that "information is unsourced" and "language used fails to satisfy WP:NPOV" are going to need to be more clearly articulated. Examples of unsourced information include: conducted primarily through the use of the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate (is there any reliable source which actually says this? really?). Examples of POV phrasing include: Many using the Gamergate hashtag argued that they were campaigning against political correctness and poor journalistic ethics in the video game industry, while numerous commentators dismissed Gamergate's purported concerns with ethics and condemned its misogynistic behavior. (has a screaming case of WP:WEASEL & WP:HOWEVER; fails to mention that numerous commentators did not dismiss the Gamergate movement's concerns - including many commentators that we cite in the article, and many that we've specifically chosen not to cite). Examples of non-statements include: concerns issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture (what does that actually mean?); Most Gamergate hashtag user are anonymous, and the loosely organized movement had no official leaders, spokespeople, or manifesto. (true of all hashtag activism - from #StopKony2012 to #OscarsSoWhite - welcome to the internet)... - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the nod. The article is too big, too bulky, and too full of its own self importance to report what is actually notable vs a laundry list of tawdry tabloid information. The lede has long reflected that. I still say that the article is self-evidently called the "Gamergate controversy" which means it is not actually about Gamergate; so means everything from that point forwards is all set to be a hot mess of an unencyclopedic trot through the annals of the internet-way-back machine. Unfortunately my "suggested" article would involve culling close to 50% of the death-by-quote content that has been introduced to prop up the narrative style. I have to accept some blame for that because such minor inclusions previously of readily verifiable statements by reliable sources were so often challenged and removed by obviously biased editors trying to malign Quinn.

I have periodically suggested the article gets on an encyclopedic footing (rather than reading like a more heavily cited version of RationalWiki) but each time it has been bogged down after a few comments into specifics of language rather than the general idea that the article itself is a horror-story and needs a whole-sale revision. Koncorde (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

...the article itself is a horror-story and needs a whole-sale revision. That's as fair a summary as I've seen. Nor can I disagree with the death-by-quote assessment; though perhaps the percentage estimate is charitable. Looking through the article, I find a number of statements which are not directly verified by the sources used as references (a long standing issue, specifically mentioned in the WP:ARBGG arbitration); and also a number of "pull quotes" which do not reflect the whole of the source (see WP:CHERRYPICK). Suggest that removing the former and identifying the latter might be a worthwhile first pass. Thoughts? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes

Several changes made to the lead in the past few days. Here's a diff showing all of them. I think many of them are constructive, though I would disagree with at least a few of them, especially the ones in the second paragraph. One can't really talk about Gamergate without talking about Twitter, 4chan or Reddit. Also the "it's all about ethics in game journalism" part (together with the dismissal) has been removed, which also doesn't make sense. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

They look pretty damn good to me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I have kept most of the changes intact, but mentioned the role of 4chan, reddit and Twitter. The article is filled with references to 4chan. Trying to discuss Gamergate without 4chan is unimaginable. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I mostly think that naming specific platforms will not be a meaningful to many people trying to read a summary. 4chan and reddit may be known to us, but I'm not convinced it will signify to those coming to learn about GG. And saying Twitter uses hash tags or has harassment is like saying water is wet. I don't think the inclusion is illuminating or helpful in a summary. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The names are described as "platforms or protocols" (we could drop the latter at the cost of some precision; I added it because IRC is just a protocol, not a platform per se). They are also described as anonymous and pseudonymous, and the sentence states that they were used for organizing. Only then are the platforms named. A person who has no knowledge of 4chan or reddit can still understand the purpose of the sentence, and if they o, will get some much needed information about the platforms used. As I said, 4chan, Twitter or reddit are inseparable from Gamergate; it does not make sense to talk about the latter without the former. I have rephrased the beginning of the paragraph to make it clearer. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I generally think that Bilby's point in the section below about "what Gamergate is about" is correct. I had earlier raised the same point in my comments on the reorganization of the lead. For now, I have moved the "ethics in game journalism" part, together with its dismissal, to the second paragraph of the lead (where it originally was). One has to give the reader an idea about what Gamergate claimed to be acting against. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

is that the third rail i see? (aka: Gjoni's post)

So one of the last things I think needs trimming is the long blurb in the lede about Gjoni's post. I think it's too detailed, but I think perhaps some mention of it is appropriate. Thoughts? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"entering a relationship with a journalist in exchange for positive coverage" -> "entering an unethical relationship with a journalist"? (not satisfying, but better?) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, why "a former boyfriend of Quinn" instead of "Eron Gjoni, Quinn's former boyfriend"? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Anything else to trim?

I think I've made as many edits as consensus will bear. Anything else? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Ey

I hope you guys wouldn't mind if I question the neutrality of this article. I feel as if this article was written by a bunch of SJWs and really looks like it has a whole lot of wrong information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hug0905 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes. Calling people "SJWs" out of the gate is sure to have anyone taking you seriously. I'm certain you'll provide a lot of value to this discussion.--Jorm (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

As a card-carrying SJW, I pride myself on incorrect information. So, on that note, 2+2=8. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Biased article

After giving up on attempting to contribute to this Wikipedian catastrophe years ago (and I really, really tried), I decided to have a quick look at how it's progressed. I'm having PTSD flashbacks of trying to reason with the editors on this page.

It's improved. It's still quite biased in favour of, as the commenter above me characterises them, "SJWs". Maybe in another three years this article will actually be decent and neutral and not a brochure advertisement for social justice posers and opportunists.

Keep trying. AWildAppeared (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Kool Story, Bro.--Jorm (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, your account is only a year and a half old, so stop with the "years ago" bullshit. No one believes you.--Jorm (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

1) Don't be a creepy stalker. 2) >pretending an account's age and record is necessarily indicative of a person's activity on wikipedia. AWildAppeared (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Admitting to being a sock puppet? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly the sort of harassment that's responsible for this poor quality article. AWildAppeared (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that since the article follows the sources and there's no general trend in emerging sources to be more favorable towards Gamergate (pretty much anything modern is going to ignore the "ethics in game journalism" narrative, for instance) I doubt this article is ever likely to be satisfying to you. Artw (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi AWildAppeared. You can think whatever you like about the article, but this talk page exists to provide suggestions to improve the article. If you have concrete suggestions, you can give them here (or edit the article or whatever), otherwise, see WP:NOTFORUM. For the rest of the people, please WP:FOC. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

a result of gamergate?

http://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/news/a45178/why-im-running-brianna-wu-massachusetts/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

A review of "what is gamergate"

It's been a few years. What are people saying gamergate is now? The following is a blog and only mentions GG shortly, but if you look around, you see how GG is viewed in many (if not most places now). http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ian-p-buckingham/female-gamers-the-moral-c_b_16308116.html ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear what your point is, but "harassment" occurs six times in the lead, including the first sentence and the last sentence. I doubt anyone would read the lead and not conclude that harassment was the major thing for which Gamergate is known. This (heavily negative) Guardian article, and this The Verge article both tie Gamergate to larger cultural and political issues. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Recent coverage. This will be a bit long, but I wanted to be comprehensive:
  • http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/milo-yiannopoulos-was-only-famous-because-of-gamergate-9220643 ("GamerGate, for those who need a refresher course, was a harassment campaign spawned from the depths of image board forums in response to a disgruntled boyfriend’s manifesto against his game developer ex-girlfriend.")
  • https://qz.com/901761/donald-trump-and-steve-bannon-are-using-gamergate-culture-to-attract-angry-white-men/ ("Gamergate is a loose collection of disaffected (mostly) men who have used the issue of ethics in gaming journalism as a pretext to harass and attack women and many minority groups.")
  • https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/27/14412594/fbi-gamergate-harassment-threat-investigation-records-release ("But if anything, this emphasizes that Gamergate per se was one facet of a larger culture war — which it’s now been almost completely absorbed into.")
  • https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/14/if-we-took-gamergate-harassment-seriously-pizzagate-might-never-have-happened/ ("Gamergate started with a man lashing out at his game developer ex-girlfriend through a blog post crafted to incite the Internet against her.")
  • https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/01/gamergate-alt-right-hate-trump ("It’s understandable that the world didn’t much care about Gamergate. The 2014 hashtag campaign, ostensibly founded to protest about perceived ethical failures in games journalism, clearly thrived on hate – even though many of those who aligned themselves with the movement either denied there was a problem with harassment, or wrote it off as an unfortunate side effect." ... "Lest we forget, Gamergate was an online movement that effectively began because a man wanted to punish his ex girlfriend. Its most notable achievement was harassing a large number of progressive figures - mostly women – to the point where they felt unsafe or considered leaving the industry." There's a lot more along these lines, too much to summarize here; it dissects Gamergate tactics in depth as part of drawing a line between them and Trump, who they say used the same playbook.)
  • http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-gamergate-target-congress-20161223-story.html (and a lot more coverage of this; example quote: "In the gaming world, Brianna Wu has earned a reputation battling the online harassment campaign known as Gamergate, a fight that led to rape and murder threats from the darker recesses of the male-dominated realm.")
  • http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/12/sleeping_giants_campaign_against_breitbart.html ("Gamergate was spawned out of a controversy over inaccurate claims that a writer at the Gawker Media site Kotaku had positively reviewed an indie game by a developer he was dating. Incensed, Gamergate trolls launched a vicious campaign against the developer and other women that included violent threats and the leaking of personal information.")
  • http://www.poconorecord.com/news/20170425/bullies-target-gamer-girls ("One case is that of videogame-designer Zoe Quinn, who in 2014 became the target of massive-scale harassment. The controversy, known to some as Gamergate, began when Quinn’s estranged ex-boyfriend Eron Gjoni posted a 9,425-word rant about her online.")
  • http://www.salon.com/2016/09/15/gamergater/ ("What’s really terrifying is that for a surprisingly long time Gamergate worked: For months, anti-feminists in the tech world were extremely effective at undermining feminists and creating the illusion that a bunch of bullies might have legitimate grievances. Eventually, most witnesses to Gamergate woke up and saw it for what it was.")
  • http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/gamergate-meme-war-shares-dna-with-prodonald-trump-trolls-20160914-grg052.html ("The aftermath of Zoe Quinn (now her legal name) and Eron Gjoni's lovelife was GamerGate, which left scorched earth across social media, women forced from their homes because of constant rape and death threats from internet trolls, a gaming community that felt scapegoated and betrayed, and a culture war that continues - with some of the main players now involved in the 2016 US presidential election.")
  • http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-hollywood-values-updates-how-will-gamergate-values-play-out-in-1483646871-htmlstory.html ("“Gamergate” is the term now used to describe the movement in which Internet trolls attacked high-profile people in the game industry if they attempted to change — or even speak out about — the misogynistic themes of video games. They are the gaming world’s radical right, and they’re fighting back against what they see as the onslaught of politically correct culture.")
  • http://www.businessinsider.com/ethan-ralph-gamergate-leader-arrested-2016-9 ("Gamergate, a group known by many for both its online harassment campaigns and its vehement denial that it's involved in online harassment campaigns, has mostly fizzled since its inception in the summer of 2014.")
  • https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/21/milo-yiannopoulos-rise-and-fall-shallow-actor-bad-guy-hate-speech ("Yiannopoulos found his stepping stone to America in Gamergate, an online movement that claimed to campaign for ethics in videogame journalism while subjecting women in the industry to brutal harassment. Unlike older conservatives, Yiannopoulos understood what was bubbling up on platforms such as Reddit and 4chan: a new gamified form of hard-right discourse based not on ideas but on memes, harassment and “saying the unsayable”, driven by white male resentment toward minorities and so-called “social justice warriors”, the au courant name for political correctness. ")
• That was all the recent RS coverage I could turn up in a quick Google news search. A lot of it is already mentioned above or in the article. But summarizing, now that we have all the recent stuff in one place:

• Virtually all mainstream sources in the past half-year ago flatly describe it as a harassment campaign. 'But ethics' is rarely mentioned, and when it is it's almost always explicitly described as a pretext or a tactic rather than as a motivation or goal. An example from the Guardian ref: "While the core of these movements make people’s lives hell, the outer shell – knowingly or otherwise – protect abusers by insisting that the real problem is that you don’t want to talk, or won’t provide the ever-shifting evidence they politely require."
• A lot of coverage of Milo Yiannopoulos and how it gave him his start; I'd say that he could stand to be more prominent in the article, since it feels like lifting him to prominence was one of the most long-term impacts of the controversy, and several sources say that his support was crucial in making it last as long as it did. Breitbart as a whole is covered the same way and seems fairly central.
• To a lesser extent, it's also heavily tied to its main targets (I left out references mentioning Quinn, Sarkeesian, and Wu when it was only in passing, but there were a lot of them), so they're still core to the story.
• Many, many comparisons between Trump and Gamergate, especially in terms of tactics and the base they target. There's also a lot of coverage of it as the genesis of the alt-right and its tactics.

In other words... unsurprisingly, harassment is central; it's all most mainstream sources say about it when mentioning it in passing. The other main points are the figures involved, the tactics used, the connection to the alt-right (and Breitbart in particular) and to the playbook used by Trump. Actually, that is pretty close to our current article - the main things are that we don't have as much about the connection to the Alt-Right and Trump as we perhaps could; and our "debate over ethics allegations" section is something that, if we're going by modern sources, could possibly be cut down and be folded into the tactics and culture war sections rather than covered as its own thing. Oh, and one other thing I noticed - most coverage is extremely dismissive of Gamergate's long-term achievements, essentially boiling them down to producing harassment, uplifting Yiannopoulos, providing the playbook for Trump and the Alt-Right, and nothing else. For instance, from the Guardian: "Other than harassment, very little was achieved, with tiny changes held aloft as great victories". The Business Insider ref describes how Gamergate "mostly fizzled" after its inception. Actually, those two might be the most important part, since that retrospective is (obviously) something the older sources couldn't give us and is currently absent from the article. --Aquillion (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I also think the 2016 part should be described in more detail in the article (as I mention in the discussion about the lead in the previous section). However, the "dismissive" comment is weird. If Gamergate was in some way related to the rise of Yiannopoulos, alt-right or Trump, "dismissive" about "long-term achievements" seems to me to be in the same category as "other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?". I am personally skeptical of many of these theories about Gamergate and Trump, but as they are very common in all kinds of media , they could perhaps could do with a fuller exposition. This exposition could either be forked as a separate article, or we could trim some of the material based on the early newspaper coverage (which is often repetitive), to make space in this article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's what those sources say; again, Gamergate 'generally fizzled', and 'other than harassment, very little was achieved, with tiny changes held aloft as great victories' - if you have another way to characterize that, or if you've got other sources saying otherwise, be my guest, but I don't think they see the Alt-Right or Trump as a Gamergate achievement, no. Instead, they see parallels in terms of using the same general spiel and targeting the same audience, so to speak. For instance, the Sydney Morning Herald says that "GamerGate didn't start the alt-right -- but shares some of the DNA of the online racist movement." In the Guardian piece, Yiannopoulos (who obviously owes his fame to it) is specifically described as using it as a 'stepping stone' and as one of a few "opportunistic people" who "learned to hijack the obsession of the online crowds". In other words, the Guardian and Business Insider see it as something that ultimately fizzled out without accomplishing anything itself, but which Breitbart later attempted again (more successfully) in order to push Trump. --Aquillion (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think "achievement" is the right word; it is very hard to disentangle cause-and-effect for many things. But there are other kinds of influences between A and B: one can contributes to the other, or both rise from the phenomenon C, and so on. I think "effects", "consequences" or "influences" are better concepts to talk about. With this in mind, what you describe is just normal politics. People use currents in popular thinking to gain power, fame, money etc. That does not mean that the currents are not important or were not instrumental in the associated politics. For instance, suppose it is true that Gamergate served as a template for Trump's media relations, as this Jay Rosen piece (cited in one of your links above) says. It could be a dubious achievement, depending on one's view of Trump, but serving as a template for a successful Presidential campaign is no mean achievement. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• So harassment is central. (And perhaps the NPOV claims of being unfair to GG users/supports can be put to rest?)
• I think Milo needs a stronger mention in the ggc article, but most of the information (after a mention here) belongs at Milo's wiki article.
• I think the lede spends too much verbage on GGC claims (which are largely dismissed). There needs to be some trimming there. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The lede spends almost no time on GG claims. If anything, this is a problem, because reading through the current lede you get almost no idea of what they were about. I'd certainly be disinclined to reduce the current coverage. - Bilby (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bilby: The lead has been recently changed a fair bit (see a couple of sections above). I am ambivalent about some of the changes, but anyway, as to the last point you raised about "what Gamergate is about": the lead tries to give some sort of idea in the second and third paragraph. It first says that it is anonymous, diffuse, contradictory and so on. Then talks about harassment, then feminism, progressivism etc. Then "ethics in video game journalism" etc. Earlier some of this was presented earlier in the lead. In your opinion, did rearranging stuff and trimming the lead hurt intelligibility? (I don't think the earlier lead was an example of great prose either.) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The old lede wasn't substantially better, but my issue is that we can;t afford to remove any more of what GamerGate is about. At the moment, we have a generic statement in the first paragraph which, more-or-less, defines the domain, history of how it was formed in the second, and how it was organised in the third. It isn't until the fourth paragraph there there is some statement about what GamerGate were opposing, and even then it is unclear. ForbiddenRocky's suggestion of reducing it further seems unwise. - Bilby (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that, based on most recent sources, the first and especially the second paragraph give a decent overview of what Gamergate was and who and what it opposed. The other parts are more about the cultural background, its tactics, and some of the back-and-forth that happened while it was active; some of that belongs in the article (and perhaps even the lead), but there's now an essentially unanimous voice among reliable sources as to what it was. One thing that both the Guardian and Salon pieces touch on is that coverage shifted over time; our article hasn't really kept up, and perhaps includes a bit too much on early back-and-forth from before more thorough coverage got out. (Especially the Ars Technica piece detailing the 4chan chat logs that initially created it - I noticed several of the modern sources citing that; we could probably put more emphasis on that piece ourselves, and maybe even reflect that detail in the lead. I think that once reporters fully digested that, reporting largely shifted from "what's up with this all this shouting and who are the sides?" to "4chan vendetta op that got out of hand and was co-opted by Breitbart" - at least among the more internet-savvy reporters; the less internet-savvy ones just threw up their hands and covered it as "wave of harassment in 2014.") --Aquillion (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

"what GamerGate were opposing" what was GG opposing? it was a diffuse, semi-organized thing, (as stated in the lede), and most of the claims that came out of GG were largely dismissed. most of the claims that came out of GG were the coat rack for justifying the central theme of gg - harassment. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

See my comment in the section above. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Good edit. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

main article changes

quoting Aquillion: "the main things are that we don't have as much about the connection to the Alt-Right and Trump as we perhaps could; and our "debate over ethics allegations" section is something that, if we're going by modern sources, could possibly be cut down and be folded into the tactics and culture war sections rather than covered as its own thing. Oh, and one other thing I noticed - most coverage is extremely dismissive of Gamergate's long-term achievements, essentially boiling them down to producing harassment, uplifting Yiannopoulos, providing the playbook for Trump and the Alt-Right, and nothing else. For instance, from the Guardian: "Other than harassment, very little was achieved, with tiny changes held aloft as great victories". The Business Insider ref describes how Gamergate "mostly fizzled" after its inception. Actually, those two might be the most important part, since that retrospective is (obviously) something the older sources couldn't give us and is currently absent from the article."

"how do you eat an elephant?" "one bite at a time." The current bite is the lede, but these are things we should consider for next few bites. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

tie-in to other things

Kingsindian writes: "This (heavily negative) Guardian article, and this The Verge article both tie Gamergate to larger cultural and political issues." & there have been comments about ties to "alt-right", Milo, Breitbart, and Trump.

I think this needs to be more clearly sectioned out in the main article, and then a good sentence about it added to the lede. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

There is already a sentence about "culture war" etc. and the third paragraph is talking about this topic, broadly speaking. I agree that there should be more discussion about this in the article body. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be better organized. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Gross misreprentation

Gross misrepresentation appears throughout the article. The Gamergate controversy is about ethics in journalism concerning gaming AND about the opposition to the politicization of gaming, to which the majority happens to be done by the feminists. The alleged harassment of these feminists (I am personally against harassment) and feminism in the Gamergate controversy is less notable than aforementioned and is a subtopic of the Gamergate controversy, not the entire topic, however the article is written as if it is the entire topic. The undue wight in this article needs to be fixed. --I'm on day 4 (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Even though I principally agree with the idea that "gamergate" is more than the controversy this article is named after, the assembled masses are preeeeetty much 100% obsessed with harassing, haranguing and generally being vile to anyone expressing an opinion that they don't agree with, and this is reflected in all reliable sources. If you have any reliable sources to the contrary, please provide them. Thank you. Koncorde (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if you've already read it, but you might find this section above to be worth a read, since it discusses this exact thing. As for the rest of your points, you'll need some reliable sources that support how you think the article should be reframed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

"Alleged" harassment suggests doubt. There is no question among reliable sources that harassment has occurred, and casting doubt on it like that suggests a lack of familiarity with sources. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources and doesn't validate fringe ideas. Grayfell (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Read through the talk page archives. To be blunt, this will not gain any traction given the history of this page. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Just give it up already. Taking up the fight for neutrality in an article this politicized is futile and a waste of energy, imo. You have staunch third wave feminists and social justice warriors on one side and edgy gamers on the other. And Wikipedia, even though built on a concept of neutrality, is in itself a mainly liberal and leftist community which often tends to lean towards one side rather than the other. Gamergate is one example, where certain elements gets overwhelmingly space and volume in articles while attempts from neutral "outsiders" often gets shot down. Beatitudinem (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

<pat on head> Run along now, little Gamergater. Run along. --Jorm (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't consider me part of either, but nice try though. Beatitudinem (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No one uses the phrase "Social Justice Warriors" except GamergateBros, so. Have fun with the "I'm not any side" schlock as no one believes that.--Jorm (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The entire Internet uses that phrase, not just people concerned with the Gamergate case. The toxicity of SJWs are just as relevant to harassment as anyone else. Beatitudinem (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, that's a fine stance to take. But if you'd like to incorporate it in to this article, we would need a reliable source saying as much. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Are we here to improve articles for readers or to argue about personal views? Comment on the content, not the contributor. When Wikipedia itself is participating in a social issue (which is now a shadow of its former self), don't be surprised people consider this article to be biased. (I'm sure this comment won't be popular here.) feminist 13:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I see the troupe is trying to get back together. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Where an honest, fair and balanced account of Gamergate is to be found, it is not here. The fact that the three "Related Articles" at the bottom of the mobile version of the article all lead to the three people who have arguably benefitted the most from Gamergate, either fiscally or through other means, speaks volumes - and two of them had no part in the controversy until they deliberately inserted themselves into it. In short, I tell anyone who is curious as to what Gamergate actually is to avoid this article at all costs. CynicalNurse (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You have a very odd definition of "benefited" and "deliberately inserted themselves into it", and not one that I'm inclined to share. However, those articles are clearly related to GamerGate, so it doesn't seem like a bad call to have them identified. - Bilby (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I think that my definition fits perfectly well, considering how vocal all three have been in promoting the harassment they have allegedly received and attributed to Gamergate as well as the fiscal results of doing so, and the subsequent opportunities they have been afforded since. But the point remains that when someone asks me what Gamergate is, I tell them that if they want a fair and balanced article, this is not it, and very likely never will be. CynicalNurse (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not all Wikipedia's fault. If there's another truth about Gamergate, it needs to be published somewhere WP:RS. If you are right, you and others who agree with you should concentrate on getting it published, then worry about transferring the important parts of it to this article. Chrisrus (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

next?

Since the lede is at least organized in a way that seems satisfactory for a few days (days... snort), I was thinking of at least moving the sections of the main article around to echo the organization of the lede. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there necessarily has to be a slavish link between the two but it makes logical sense to move towards this particular order. Artw (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I was taking the order of the lede as hint as to what people think should be mentioned first. There's a logic to the lede that makes it make more sense. I was thinking that logic could be applied to the main article. Not that the lede should structure the article, per se. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Was agreeing. Sorry if unclear. Artw (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

So, I'm thinking of swapping sections 2 and 4. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I swapped sections 2 and 4. Can some check that I didn't mess the move up? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking over it, I think the activities section could stand to be seriously cut down in size; most of the things in the 'efforts to impact public perceptions' section look extremely trivial from a viewpoint here in 2017 looking back, and even many of the minutiae of the "targeting advertisers" section could be seriously condensed. In many cases, we devote entire paragraphs to things that are only given a passing mention in even the contemporary sources we use, and these are things that have only faded as time went on. An entire paragraph for Tim Schafer, say? An entire paragraph for Biddle specifically, and a second one - with only one source, aside from the ones for the term "Sealion" - for using adblockers? Putting aside the harassment covered in the previous section, the only activity that seems to have attracted any long-term coverage (ie. the only one I think is really worth more than a sentence or so at most) is the targeting of advertisers. I would suggest rewriting the section to focus on that, and trimming or omitting everything else. We also repeat a lot of the back-and-forth over and over ("they did X because they said felt Y, but Z said it was actually...", lather, rinse, repeat), which bloats the section far beyond what it needs to be given that all of that has its own sections further down. This section should mostly focus on "they targeted advertisers" and leave the reasons or cultural debates for the next two sections. (Both of which could probably also stand to be somewhat trimmed in retrospect, but one thing at a time.) -Aquillion (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree trimming needs to be done. But as you say one thing at a time. The simply reorganization is very low hanging fruit. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's obvious that some parts of that section would be very contentious to remove, but I think the paragraphs on Schafer, Biddle, and adblockers can be safely removed at this point. Aaand... as I typed that, I realized that I can just be WP:BOLD, remove them, and see if anyone objects. Possibly some sources on the latter two could be salvaged and used for a more general composite section about going after advertisers, but I think we'd be better off using the first paragraph of that section as the basis for that anyway, since it's already written to be more broad. The only thing that made me pause for a moment was that this leaves no mention of 'sealion' anywhere on the page, but... again, trivia. Now that things have settled down and we have retrospectives to work with, we ought to aim towards turning the article into more of a useful overview of the topic and less of a blow-by-blow. --Aquillion (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I have some suspicions that 'sealions' and 'vivian james' need some mention. I think anyone researching GG would run across these thing and would want an explanation. I'm not sure where though. Or how. Most of the stuff you deleted is trivial in the scope of things. Some of the stuff are examples reiterating what GG did (examples that feel like beating a dead horse). ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

a batch of edits

I've made some edits. Easy to revert, if needed. Only one section; should be easy to discuss, if needed. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a lot of mention of people's credentials, how necessary is that now? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm about to hack at this paragraph. It is almost entirely redundant.

Ryan Cooper of The Week highlighted an analysis by writer Jon Stone: "[Gamergate] readjusts and reinvents itself in response to attempts to disarm and disperse its noxiousness, subsuming disaffected voices in an act of continual regeneration, cycling through targets, pretexts, manifestoes, and moralisms". Christopher Grant, editor-in-chief of Polygon, said that Gamergate has remained amorphous and leaderless so that the harassment can be conducted without any culpability. Grant said that meant that "ultimately Gamergate will be defined—I think has been defined—by some of its basest elements".

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

proposed edit (not sure about this one)

Ryan Cooper of The Week highlighted an analysis by writer Jon Stone: "[Gamergate] readjusts and reinvents itself in response to attempts to disarm and disperse its noxiousness, subsuming disaffected voices in an act of continual regeneration, cycling through targets, pretexts, manifestoes, and moralisms".

goes to

Jon Stone wrote, "[Gamergate] readjusts and reinvents itself in response to attempts to disarm and disperse its noxiousness, subsuming disaffected voices in an act of continual regeneration, cycling through targets, pretexts, manifestoes, and moralisms".

rationale: Do we need to mention the person referring to an analysis of another person? Is there a better way to deal with reference to a comment problem? (please note, I'm not asking the question if the analysis itself is redundant. Yet.)

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)