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.

Article from Spiked

[1], from the liberal-leaning magazine Spiked (magazine) (which is odd as most of the other media support for GG has come from the conservative side, but in reading, I think this side is more backing GG in the consumer aspect, while the conservatives appear to be backing GG from the social/feminism aspects). It's one source, and thus would be far too much to give more than a sentence-worth of time, but I think between this and other conservative works that back the GG side, we probably need to have one paragraph to explain that these works are backing GG for various reasons. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't think we can use Irene Ogrizek RS. She's rather well known for posting anti-feminist stuff to A Voice for Men. And I think it's OR/Synth to "xplain that these works are backing GG for various reasons". Thought I'm surprised there isn't RS to back a statement that conservatives back GG. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Why does her opinion on being anti-feminist matter? It's still an opinion (and I stress, as an opinion, not statements of fact) that is a different opinion from mainstream but aligns with what GG has said it is. It's not OR to list out what sources back GG, just as we have listed out sources that have condemned GG based on the original accusation. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A Voice for Men is the more salient point. That opinion would have problems with UNDUE and FRINGE. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"It's not OR to list out what sources back GG" is not the same as "explain that these works are backing GG" ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

And again, why does it being A Voice for Men (which I do recognize is a not a very popular viewpoint) matter? And I stress again that given all the various media that is apparently right-wing that are reliable sources for their opinions (not facts), that it is not undue for a short paragraph to outline some of these sources or persons that have come out in favor of GG. As to the second, I would make sure that we have to make sure the language of the source article says with clarity they support the GG movement or the like, rather that just writing about it and then talking their own ideals but without support. That's not OR to do that as long as we're not guessworking on if they support or back GG. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you want to your pet OR again. No, you have to back up things with RS. No OR. No SYNTH. I don't disagree with what you want to write, but I haven't been able to find RS to support it. "Though I'm surprised there isn't RS to back a statement that conservatives back GG." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, from reading some of the GG posts/statement some of them want to claim they are liberals. So your notion of self-report is weak. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If that's the issue, then we don't even need to ID the slant these other sources take, but still should be including these other sources that appear to speak in favor of GG. We can let the reader review the author or work, and make the judgement of which slant these works are, but importantly, they are counteropinions to the mainstream view that should be at least touched on within a single paragraph at most. The only reason I was considering the slant angle is for narrative grouping but that's not required to do it. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Masem, I'd just like to note that to me, you're edging a bit close to "opinions on the shape of the Earth differ" territory. Counteropinions are not, again to me, deserving of inclusion by dint of the fact that they are counteropinions. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

We're not talking FRINGE here, however. With "shape of the Earth", ample volumes of scientific evidence clearly put any flat earth stances in the FRINGE category. With a controversy where no right answer has been determined or likely will be determined, there is no such application of FRINGE, though we still need to be wary of UNDUE, and hence why its not a call to drive equal balance of viewpoints. But as per the RFC, when we are aware of biased coverage of a topic within the sources, we should be looking towards including other sources so that we can eliminate that bias in WP's writing. Again, one paragraph at most to outline opinions that these other sources have taken is in no way a violation of policy and in fact helps us to document the controversy better. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The issue, Masem, is that a 'right answer' has been determined- Gamergate is and has been since inception about the harassment of diverse voices and those who seek diversity in the gaming industry. Please stop beating the horse- you've killed it, it's dead, walk away. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope, can't accept that nor can WP write as if that is fact. That's the predominant view, but it's just a view, not an answer. There has been nothing presented in any reliable source that we on WP should be taking as the definitive result in considering NPOV policy. Thus presenting alternate opinions from the mainstream is appropriate to do. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

So then, Masem, your argument relies upon an identification of Spiked as being part of the mainstream, yes? Dumuzid (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I would argue Spiked is mainstream in that it is work that doesn't focus on one area of interest like gaming sites. It does not necessarily represent the mainstream political views because of its specific political slant but that's not how I'd identify "mainstream". --MASEM (t) 20:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so 'mainstream' for you is essentially a test of topics covered by a potential source? Dumuzid (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, to avoid confusion (which is my fault) let's avoid getting too far away from the accepted term for mainstream media which generally encompasses the large media sources like NYTimes, WaPost, etc., which by this would put Spiked as an alternative source. Spiked would fall into the non-gaming press, which along with the mainstream media (this exact definition) are better sources to help bring the situation to broader readership and thus more appropriate for the encyclopedia. So to reclarify: Spiked is a non-gaming source but also not part of "mainstream media", but that does not invalidate it as a reliable source for alternate opinions to the predominant opinion that most mainstream media and some other alternate non-gaming and most reliable gaming outlets share on GG's intent/purpose. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

When you write "Nope, can't accept that[...]" as a flat response to this every time people point out the fringe-ness of your viewpoint, then reiterate your past points that have been shut down again and again, all I can see is "I didn't hear that". PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Several others editors have pointed out the situation with this article that suffers from the entrenched views of a few; it is not just me. I've listened to all the arguments presented, and as others have pointed out, there is no compelling case under WP neutrality policy to accept that "GG is about harassment" as fact. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

RS. Find it. Then edit with it. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an RS for opinions as best as I can tell. Plenty of other RSes have been presented for similar reliability of opionions, as well as showing that the existing RSes like NYTimes and WaPost do not actually state things like "GG is only about harassment" either as opinions or as fact. But attempts to use these appropriate are nearly always argued away by some editors. --MASEM (t) 03:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Masem here, and frankly I'm reading the above and noticing that the statements of several editors are boiling down to "this isn't saying what I want the article to". The same people arguing to systematically remove any source that does not paint this subject as a harassment movement should not be turning around and shouting that a mainstream source saying such is "fringe". It has become increasingly apparent that several editors have made up their minds on what the article should say, and frankly I do feel additional arbitration may be needed. Because as this carries on it does seem we have a valid case for multiple editors trying to enforce ownership of the article, and not making any attempts to hide that their personal feelings on this subject may be affecting their neutrality towards developing an encyclopedic article on the matter.

I really do want to assume good faith here, but I think some of the editors need to look at this thread and ask themselves if the article was instead slamming Gamergate, would you be fighting so fiercely against its inclusion?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely unusable, due to the WP:FRINGE reasons mentioned above, also well below the threshold of quality for sources that has been argued for elsewhere in the article. Artw (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

FRINGE cannot apply to the idea of stating other opinions of what the GG movement might be given that there's little actual evidence of what it really is (in contrast to the flat earth theory where piles of evidence exist otherwise), and that the statement that "GG is a harassment movement" is clearly controversial. ("The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article." per FRINGE). And per the RFC from early on this article, we are allowed to use less-than-perfect RSes to overcome systematic biases in the media to stay neutral and objective. --MASEM (t) 05:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It is absolutely untrue that there is anything controversial in calling GamerGateva harrasment movement since that is how it is consistently described by reliable sources. also is there really an RFC that comes to that conclusion? Show me. Artw (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall any such RFC succeeding; and if so, consensus can change. I would definitely assert that there is a clear consensus here against using "less than perfect RSes" like that today. Deliberately using poor-quality sources simply to "balance" a view unequivocally goes against WP:VALID and WP:NPOV. --Aquillion (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not consistently reported that way in sources; there was an analysis of main highly reliable sources a few months ago here that point out that while there is clearly some connection between harassment and the GG movement, and that universally the way the movement behaves is encouraging that harassment, the most reliable sources do not outright make the claim that GG is a harassment movement. Add in that we have RSes that contend that GG is anything but a harassment movement, and that makes the statement "GG is a harassment movement" contentious, and thus under NPOV should only be treated as a claim and that we should be attempting to document the situation by at least giving other opinions some time too so that the reader can actually understand the situation. And the RFC is here [2], which I direct to the closer's 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." --MASEM (t) 06:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The conclusions of that RFC in no way support your position whatsoever. I'm a bit amazed that you would pass it off as such. Artw (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your other link fails to convince also. Artw (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'liberal-leaning'? Spiked is a libertarian magazine, and as such both right-wing and generally pretty hardline anti-feminist. I don't feel that this opinion piece is particularly noteworthy, given that, in that it's from a relatively obscure author writing for a relatively obscure, non-mainstream source, saying exactly what we would expect an author there would say about anything that they feel touches on feminism or cultural issues. It's normal for a everyone in politics to say "this current controversy is really about my pet issues" about high-profile topics, but without a higher-quality sources backing it up, I think it would be WP:UNDUE to cover it. --Aquillion (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Spiked was born from the ashes of a magazine called Living Marxism, and is run by a self proclaimed Marxist. [3] To describe Spiked as liberal leaning isn't entirely untrue. Brustopher (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Another from American Spectator

[4]. Again , a conservative work, and again likely bundled into the same issues above on usability. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that great care would have to be taken with that one. BLP issues abound.— Strongjam (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I tend to refrain from calling sources fringe, but this is a full on conspiracy theory Surrey with the fringe on top. Brustopher (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It is just uncritically regurgitating claims that have been better covered elsewhere, with a really bad analogy and a lot of mistakes. Not worth touching in any way. - Bilby (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not so much what they are saying, but that they are saying something (this and the Spiked article above, for example, do not appear to be op-eds and there's no cautionary language that I can immediately find on either side to distance the views of these authors from the published work itself. One can argue these works, overall, are op-eds by nature, but they still appear to be editorially controlled) Given that the involvement of the mainstream, more-centralist media is part of the GG situation, the aspect of non-centralist papers commenting on the situation is an important point. It's possible to dismiss that they are just latching onto the general attitudes that the GG side has shown, but it's still a separate view from that of the mainstream. This is why it would make sense to have, at most, one paragraph , or even just a sentence, to describe notable persons and works that have spoken in favor of GG (such as Yannipolis/Brietbart, CH Sommers, Young, and these politically-slanted works). We don't need to go into any great detail of what they say (particularly if it goes into BLP claims), but to flatly ignore that there are several voices opining on the situation from otherwise reliable sources for opinions is not an objective approach here. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree with you that it is interesting that these politically-minded sources are, at times, latching onto GamerGate - this is a good example of something that reads as if it was written specifically to appeal to that particular market. But I'm wary of trying to draw any sort of picture from the presence of these articles without a source discussing them. I seem to recall that one of the paper's I'd read had made some mention of the nature of the Yannipolis/Sommers support, so perhaps there was something useful to frame the point there? - Bilby (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Both Yannipolis and Sommers have stated in their own words they support GG, and both were involved in setting up the DC GG meetup. Cathy Young also appears to support GG per her Reason.com piece (and to note that Sommers, Young, and Singal (who is not) are scheduled to be on a Huffington Post piece tonight as I write this, talking about GG). But as to these articles, and related to AirPlay, is the nature of the media's coverage of GG. It is very very unlikely that the mainstream media is going to point to articles from the political ends that are critical of their coverage of the situation. Ideally either something from a neutral party at the AirPlay event, or a work like CRJ, would probably comment on this fact, but I'm pretty confident we'd be holding out for that. To add, do note that the UPI report on the bomb threat mentions the GG believe about the media bias [5]. (This also relates to the airplay section later). --MASEM (t) 16:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I did find this Irish Times blog piece that talks about this while searching for some secondary sources on Airplay. I'm not really familiar with the paper, the author, or exactly how they manage their blog pieces though. — Strongjam (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

We have an obligation to tell all sides to this story. It is wrong to ignore these articles. They should be used to balance out the article for a more NPOV. Chrisrus (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

SPJ Airplay

Just curious to know if this article will be updated to cover [SPJ Airplay]. I realise that this is a sensitive subject, but at the moment, the article tells only one side of a fairly controversial subject. The fact that the Airplay consisted entirely of discussions about Journalistic Ethics, and contained no harassment at all should at least persuade moderators that this article doesn't fairly describe Gamergate. Rocketmagnet (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

When reliable secondary sources cover it. — Strongjam (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Now covered by Reason (magazine) [6]. To note it is by Cathy Young who was in attendance at Airplay. --MASEM (t) 05:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

IIRC previous articles by Carhy Young in Reason on the subject of Gamergate have been rejected for inclusion here (material removed by The Devil's Advocate due to BLP concerns), probably a bad move to use her as a source here. Artw (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing in the archives to this; only that there was a push to remove her stuff because it was weak and likely counter to the desired view here. --MASEM (t) 06:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey! WP:AGF. Anyway, my issue is that we already cite her for a few other things, and her viewpoint (and the viewpoint of Reason (magazine)) is comparatively fringe / non-mainstream, so I'd worry about giving her opinions and focuses WP:UNDUE weight. We can't repeatedly cite one journalist from an outlet like that without risking giving too much weight to a comparatively fringe-y interpretation of events; this extends to coverage from there being worth less in terms of determining relative weight and inclusion than, say, the New York Times or the BBC. The article is already excessively-long, so I don't think we can throw in a random journalism event on it just because one libertarian outlet mentioned it; nor do I think (based on current limited coverage, anyway) that covering it would really help understand the subject. We can wait a bit and see if it has a significant impact on how the topic is seen and covered in higher-profile sources, then come back and cover it later if it is; there's no need to succumb to WP:RECENTISM. --Aquillion (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Aquillion and Masem: We only use Young twice in the article now, so I'm not too worried about undue weight. However this is a primary source, as Young was a panellist at the event, I think we need some secondary sources for any analysis of the event. At the moment the only thing that seems to have shown up in secondary sources was the bomb threats. — Strongjam (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't come as much of a surprise that people on a panel intended to discuss ethics in journalism, at an event about ethics in journalism, run by a group focused on - surprisingly - ethics in journalism, ended up discussing ethics in journalism. None of which is indicative of anything special, and doesn't reveal any more about GamerGate than telling us that some members (if we ignore the interrupted afternoon session) can stick to a topic. But although it doesn't really say much about GamerGate, I would like to see some mention that the event occurred, (beyond the bomb threats) as it was significant within the wider discussion. What I don't know is where to put acknowledgement that it took place. Maybe under "Debate over ethics allegations"? - Bilby (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

To note, the UPI article on the bomb threat [7] does also go into the reasons there was this Airplay panel in the first place, so the reasons for the panel can be sourced better. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

That was my thought, too. Use the existing source to acknowledge that Airplay occurred beyond the bomb threat. - Bilby (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps under the "public perception" then. "Supporters of the movement, including (list), were able to present arguments at the SPJ AirPlay event in August 2015, describing how they believed that media coverage of Gamergate has been biased." --MASEM (t) 16:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Except almost no one agrees with the 8chan/reddit boards that the abortive SPJ panel was significant, and it received scant coverage. At the same time, the Hugo debacle received a good deal of coverage, much of which explicitly identified the slate voters as Gamergate supporters who were being repudiated by the WorldCon membership. Oddly, reddit and Twitter are all aflutter over SJP in Wikipedia, with nary a word about the much more significant coverage of the Hugo Awards. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

We have no idea if anyone agrees because it has received scant coverage so we don't know what the mass media thinks. We know there are other off-center works that think it was significant because , to them, it puts forward that the media have skewed the perception of GG. Additionally, this article is not the place for the situation with the Hugos beyond the purported connection of the "puppies" groups to GG. Instead, that is properly covered at Hugo Award#Since 2000 including the strong reaction to the net result there. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I watched the whole thing. Everyone involved in this article should watch it objectively and realize that it's very reasonable to treat sources that rely on or are in themselves party to this dispute very likely have gotten this story fundamentally wrong. Chrisrus (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Vocativ on divisions w/ GG movement

[8] Note that the article does tread close to BLP issues (it names two specific GGers as part of the GG leadership alongside making extreme claims on the group), but it comes to state that part of the issue of the leaderless nature of GG is that it has created in-fighting of factions within the movement (particularly a difference between the "SJW" side and the ethic side) and does not give any idea of unity to their message. It also has a few updated states (10 mill tweets of GG since August '14, and an estimated 50,000 GGers based on KIA sub numbers). --MASEM (t) 05:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it really says that. It says, more or less, that comparatively few people involved in it think it's only about videogames or ethics, and those who tried to be outspoken about those subjects were rapidly marginalized and forced out by the angry reactionary culture warriors. The overall gist of it is that the discussion of ethics is mostly a marginal aspect that caught the attention of a few people, but that the overarching scope of Gamergate and the people who are most enthusiastic about it are more about using that as a bludgeon in their culture wars. It definitely states, pretty unequivocally, that "ethics only" is marginal and has been forced out While they're unscientific, one of the polls it cites says it makes up as little as 4%; even the other one only has it at 17%. And the article cites numerous people -- including both outsiders who have analyzed it and people from inside it -- who say that they don't think it's primarily about videogames or ethics. --Aquillion (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Which stresses to the point that we shouldn't be calling it outright an harassment movement either because there's no idea what GG really is internally. But I will still point to the fact that it does document infighting within the movement which has contributed to its lack of a message or effectiveness. --MASEM (t) 06:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

We do already cover both the fact that there are aspects to it other than harassment, and the fact that there are divisions and confusion over how to define it. But our overarching coverage has to reflect the relative weight given in reliable sources... and, honestly, if you read "fight SJW colonization" as being the side that mostly focuses on harassment (which is itself obviously a controversial position, but which, I think, is how most of the sources that divide Gamergate into 'factions' read it -- with the usual caveat that they define 'harassment' differently than you might), then not just that article but informal "internal" Gamergate polls (to the extent that that's a thing) seem to back up the way we're weighting it. At the very least, virtually every source, including that one, seems to agree that while some people bought into it as their main focus, "only ethics" is a very minor part of the controversy overall. --Aquillion (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

As a note, we have nothing about the divide in the article. We mention ethics and SJW as two aspects of what GG is stated is about but do not make it clear as this article states that that's actually a noticeable division within the movement, and that the SJW side tend to have the numbers and/or make the most noise as to also drown out the ethics aspect. This is partially why the mainstream press calls out the movement as disorganized, if there's this type of infighting and lack of unified vision. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Is Vocativ even a reliable source on Wikipedia? I've never even heard of it until it was suggested as a source before and even then there wasn't a clear answer. GamerPro64 20:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Was curious about this myself as I'm not familiar with them. Nothing on RSN, the Notable stories section on seems to suggest they have a positive reputation fact-checking, but I haven't dug into it much more then that. As long as we avoid any claims about living people I think its fine, if a bit weak given it's young age as a publication. If there is a specific statement we want to source from there we could take it to WP:RSN if needed. — Strongjam (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If anything, the two factoids that I think help on scope: 10M tweets and 50,000 KIA subs as estimate of GG size (which CRJ used before), are pretty straight forward to verify and consistent with information out there; a source like this can simply be used as to indicate an "as of" marker. --MASEM (t) 00:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I mean sure. We're close to a year of this happening. If there's no other article that has mentioned this yet we can use it. Might be a different story once day 365 hits. GamerPro64 00:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Unproductive. Gamaliel (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia: The Ideologically Driven 'Encyclopedia' of the Absurd The Wikipedia controversy began in January 2001 and concerns one-sided political propaganda, which must be fought tooth and nail in order to get anything even resembling the truth covered. It is most notable for a harassment campaign that sought to drive several non-feminist editors from the site, including everyone who has commented on this page who is not absolutely dedicated to supporting radical feminist causes in their coverage and only giving coverage exclusively to radical feminist perspectives. They sandwich anything not from a radical feminist source, when it must be covered at all, between sentences containing pro-feminist denials of anything any non-feminist says both in the sentence immediately before, and in the sentence immediately after the non-feminist's view is mentioned. The campaign of harassment was coordinated by both editors and staff and included threats of banning people simply for adding the truth, no matter how many or how credible their sources are. Wikipedia has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over feminism, in which feminists assert the total dominance of their ideology over existing institutions, denigrating anyone who even questions this as "ignorant" despite not being able to name any specific facts which they can claim said people are ignorant of. Some of the people using Wikipedia have said their goal is to provide a "neutral point of view" by opposing non-feminist editors simply trying to cover GamerGate in the same way as Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter, which they say is the result of a conspiracy among non-feminists. These concerns have been widely dismissed by Gamergaters as trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics GamerGate is concerned with. Users of the GamerGate hashtag launched email campaigns, targeting the advertisers of publications which clearly engage in unethical practices, you cretins. --BenMcLean (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Clever wordplay aside, I notice you mention the truth being dismissed from "credible sources." Can I ask which credible sources you are referring to, and what truths from them you'd like to integrate into the article?Brustopher (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Off-topic. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Perhaps Wikipedia should institute an "Assume Non-Cretinism" policy? Dumuzid (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Welcome back to Wikipedia! I see that you've been an editor for many years but hadn’t been around much until returning to edit in the Frankfurt School/Cultural Marxism area and now here. Do you think Wikipedia has been a manifestation of a culture war over feminism? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC) This article is a prime example of the failings of Wikipedia's model Gamergate's predominant focus has been on the unethical practice of games journalists. Is it any surprise that the journalists that you've used as sources have seriously inflated claims of harassment in order to deflect this criticism? They're not neutral parties. And neither are so many of the editors pushing their agenda on here. The only responsible thing to do is to wipe the entire thing clean and start over, with very strict arbitration. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC) I find it endlessly fascinating that the only neutral arbiters when it comes to gamergate are supporters of gamergate. It's really quite remarkable. Dumuzid (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC) I'm rather certain Masem isn't a Gamergate supporter. On subject though, you can understand the concern when the same editors go out of their way to shoot down or remove any sources not covering the subject in a negative light, and then claim WP:UNDUE on others because those sources are present. Frankly I find that both fascinating and a tad bit concerning as a long-term editor.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Not as endlessly fascinating as how the only acceptable narrative on a supposed encyclopedia are from those who oppose gamergate. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC) The rules for the acceptable narrative are quite explicitly set out in WP:WEIGHT if you want to check them out. If anything we err on the side of taking GamerGate claims more seriously than our sources. Artw (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Uh huh, except that certain regular editors of this page have fought tooth and nail against the inclusion of any source that speaks about Gamergate in favorable terms, even when it's from a publication used elsewhere in the article, e.g. Polygon. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Scetoaux, I know venting feels good, but you are a far more experienced Wikipedian than I am. Why not suggest changes to the existing article or draft a new one? I daresay if we simply erased the current article and tried again, you'd be just as dissatisfied. Dumuzid (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Try it. If nothing else, it'll bring the agenda-pushers out front and center. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC) I mean no offense, but "try it" is not a particularly compelling argument. Just for myself, I don't find it that difficult to analyze editors' stances or to figure out who is here to improve the encyclopedia and who is not. By all means, advocate for the course of action you think best. But in the meantime, it might help everyone if you tried to improve the existing article. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC) For what it's worth I would actually be pretty interested in seeing what a draft rewritten from scratch would look like. I've been thinking about writing a draft solely using sources published in academic journals, to see if it would reveal anything interesting. Brustopher (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Right now the number of academic sources is very low, less than 10 judging by a google scholar search (using "-ant" to avoid the biology side, and ignoring hits from newspapers and mainstream magazines and websites). I've said before that I fully expect that there will be a wealth of papers in a few years from the social sciences that will try to understand GG (and probably other of these culture wars like the Hugos) from a psychological and cultural standpoint, but that will take a lot of time. We do need to recognize the bulk of the sourcing for this now and for at least a year or so from now is going to come from "current affairs"-type sources (newspapers, magazines, and websites) --MASEM (t) 00:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC) FYI "Gamer gate" with the space has a few hits as well. I've also had good luck adding other related terms in to try and filter out ant articles (e.g. Quinn, Sarkeesian, video games, etc...) — Strongjam (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC) I'm not necessarily proposing it as a replacement for this article, but more as a way to brainstorm ideas for improvement. 10 sources is more than enough to write something substantial worth discussing. The vast majority of Wikipedia articles probably have less than 10 sources used. I might get started on it some time this week. Brustopher (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Off-topic. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Welcome back to Wikipedia! I see that you've been an editor for many years but hadn’t been around much, having semi-retired in 2013 until returning. Interesting how often that happens! MarkBernstein (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Mark, please assume some good faith.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC) My God, Bernstein. At least take this to peoples talk pages before you act condescending in front of others. GamerPro64 20:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Remember to assume good faith about assuming good faith, Kung Fu Man and GamerPro64 (you especially should know better as a hopeful to the admin position)- to my eyes, Bernstein seems positively angelic with the leeway he's giving our friend Scetoaux here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Adam Baldwin in American Spectator

[9] Baldwin self-written piece in American Spectator, speaking in broad terms of a GG goal. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Also related is this interview/debate between Georgia Young, Cathy Young, and Jesse Singal on Huffington Post Live from yesterday [10], where both Youngs point to the same issue that Baldwin speaks of regarding biased reporting of GG that have been pointed out in other off-centralist/right-wing-ish sources previously identified. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Look a counter-opinion Why I Became Anti-GamerGate: A Transgender Woman’s Evolution On The Issue. I suspect this week will have more "one year later" things to look at. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow. They have their own "GamerGate" section on their website. With articles like Why GamerGate Matters To Me As A Black Developer. I think they're all considered to be opinion pieces, though. GamerPro64 16:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a good place to bring this up, I suppose, as Adam Baldwin holds such a curious place in this context. While he coined the hashtag #gamergate, as I understand it, he's not particularly an expert on video games, video game journalism, harassment, or anything else sort of pro or con, unless we widen out to 'culture war' proportions. It just strikes me as a bit funny that in a way he's the originator, but for most things his opinion isn't really usable? Am I right about this, or have I lost the plot a long the way? Happy to hear others' thoughts. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

He did originate the term, so I don't think it's completely out of place to have his opinion on what he thinks GG is about. — Strongjam (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point. Could be worth noting what the person who coined GG thinks about all of this after an entire year. GamerPro64 17:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A thing to keep in mind on the Rise Miami News aspects for GG, is that after the bomb threat at AirPlay they offered to publish any opinion relating to GG. So there are a lot of op-eds there - mostly pro for obvious reasons - but they are op-eds by random people and not necessarily any expert authority on the situation. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think those Rise Miami pieces are really useful. I think of them more as "Letters to the editor". — Strongjam (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. An interesting retrospective for the most part but essentially on par with citing community game reviews in an article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Issues with dealing with coverage of GG from mainstream

Please note that I am not considering this source for including (it is a labeled contribution/op-ed from GamePolitics), but it does bring up points that as editors here we have to be careful of that I have pointed out before many times; this just confirms those points.

[11] describes how reporting on GG brings ire from both sides of the situation (in this case, anti-GG got on Good's case for writing neutrally about GG instead of condemning it) The key point is that in talking to Polygon's Owen Good, Erik Kain, Jesse Singal , and a few others, that they all notes that modern journalism stories mix fact and opinion, compared to old-school journalism where fact was segregated from opinion (they disagree which is the better approach, but all acknowledge this difference). To that end, this points for us as a tertiary source that just because something is said by a reliable source does not make it fact or truth because of the new school of journalism which mixes opinion with fact. That means we should be less hesistent to be using NPOV and not taking RSes sources as facts at their face, but instead where there is any type of contention to make sure it is labeled and attributed as such. This does not mean that all these RSes are unreliable or unusable, but only that if they are making superlative or labeling statements that are contested by others (such as "GG being a harassment campaign", we should be attributing these as opinions. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not seeing a basis for a radical shift away from WP:WEIGHT in this op-ed. Artw (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not arguing against WEIGHT; it is still the predominant opinion of mainstream that GG is about harassment and that we have to report appropriately. But the key is to recognize it as opinion and not fact, which amounts to careful wording choices in some parts of this article, not massive editing changes. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the fact/opinion distinction here is something you have invented for yourself and for anything beyond 1+1=2 is effectively meaningless. Wikipedia attempts to construct the best overview of any subject from the opinions of reliable sources, for this article and for others, and has always done so. The WEIGHT guidelines and others others are all based around this and give us a working model of how to do so and this article confirms to that model. I see no reason to make a special case for GamerGate and ignore all that.

Look, you've spend a year now trying to get us to ignore WP:UNDUE so you can paint a rosier picture of GamerGate, so I know you must be familiar with all of this, it's getting rather tiresome having to repeatedly tell you how Wikipedia works. Artw (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not arguing against UNDUE. I have said repeatedly that we need to still respect the fact that the predominant coverage of GG is decidedly negative and critical of it, and thus the article will be heavily skewed towards that opinion.

The key point however, is that WP's goal is to provide neutral coverage, and that means recognizing for a controversy and a social situation where there is not necessarily any right answer that we are supposed to be documenting the different points of view without saying which side is correct. And that means that we should not be immediately assuming that just because it is the most common view of mainstream media that their view is 100% correct. This is what NPOV demands. (See WP:NPOV/FAQ - "Rather, to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so.") I am not asking for any "special case" as this is ingrained in NPOV to make sure we are documenting the views instead of presuming either side is correct. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to understand exactly what it is you're specifically arguing for here. In your ideal world what would the article look like? What are the opinions that are stated as fact in the article, and how should they be modified? Brustopher (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It's very difficult to go into specifics but there are two things broadly that should be done. First, the article must be written on the factual nature that no one knows what GG really is, instead of coming out the door as the article presently does that it is a harassment campaign. While a claim made by many sources, it is also contested by those in the movement as well as the various off-center sources, as well as in sources like the NYTimes and WaPost. It appears as a harassment campaign, but we cannot write the article on that presumption. There has been harassment associated with GG (the history section isn't going anywhere), but we should be treating it factually that we have no idea who is actually engaging in the harassment, though plenty of finger-pointing from the media that it is the movement doing it. This, I should note, does not require major reorganization or rewriting but the appropriate wordsmithing throughout the article.

Second, once its understood that we have a movement that we cannot directly associate with the harssmet, is to make sure that we don't treat their broader claims and activities with resentfulness. (There's only one claim that we have to come out and say has been proven false, and that's the one about Quinn and Grayson that launched the whole thing). The fact we have sections called "Debate about ethics concerns" and "Efforts to impact public perception" is making it look like WP is treating their claims with scorn, which we should not be. As the NPOV/FAQ says, as long as we attribute those claims to the group, this is not WP endorsing those claims. Once we have introduced what the movement is and their claims and what other things they have done, then we can go into the criticism about those claims and the legitimacy of the movement as a whole, which are also valid to include. And it is very likely that this criticism will take more space than the statement of the movements claims, per UNDUE. Doing that is properly documenting of the controversy instead of trying to push one side of it. This would require a reorganization and wordsmithing of information that is already there, but not otherwise changing the existing sources.

This is not the only two changes that would need to be made but they are the broadest two that should be addressed first. --MASEM (t) 00:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

In response to your first point: the article doesn't start by claiming Gamergate (the group) is a harassment campaign, merely that the controversy surrounding it is "most notable for a harassment campaign." As most of the coverage surrounding Gamergate has focused harassment this is true. Also I don't know of any sources that off-center or not that deny completely GG's association with harassment. There are also sources that specifically note harassing or negative comments on twitter and gamergate forums on reddit and 8chan. It's fair enough to say GG can be associated with harassment in some way or another.

Your second point I find more understandable. We have a lot of sourced that mention certain beliefs and views popular amongst Gamergate supporters, and these views should be given greater inclusion so as to better understand what GG supporters think of themselves as. As for sections titles, what would you suggest as alternatives? Brustopher (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

W.r.t the first point, I personally find that the use of a Wikipedia term of art (e.g. notable) in WP:MAINSPACE tends to set off alarm bells, primarily around POV. It may be better for this to be phrased in natural English. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

In terms of the first point, we have this sentence from the lead "The campaign of harassment was coordinated in IRC channels and online forums such as Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan by an anonymous and amorphous group that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #gamergate." Now, I'm not saying this is factually wrong, but it is a very nuanced statement that makes it appear that #gamergate is just about harassment. It sets the tone for the entire rest of the article to say "GG is bad, okay?" And we shouldn't be doing that. There's a better to phrase is to say that on the onset of Gjoni's post, there is documented evidence of coordination of harassment; but coordination of harassment since that point is not shown, it's only perceived by trends that harassment continues. This is the type of language that seems fine if one starts with the thesis "GG is a harassment campaign" but fails to hold up when considering how we should present the sources under NPOV. --MASEM (t) 02:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

W.r.t the question of section titles. Propose:

Debate over ethics allegations -> Ethics allegations or Ethics concerns - Allegations or concerns is already a hedge word, doubly hedging with "debate over" or "questions of" is POV-sided;

Efforts to impact public perceptions -> remove subsection header; refactor/reorganise Gamergate activities section - The content of this section of the article needs work. That the activities included in this section occurred appears verified by the sources referenced; that they were an attempt to impact public perceptions is an opinion.

W.r.t Brustopher's comment these views should be given greater inclusion so as to better understand what GG supporters think of themselves, I suggest that a clear, concise, non-judgemental, potentially attributed, documenting of the Gamergate movements views of itself would be a distinct, and easily achievable improvement to this article. We can, and should, document what the movement thinks of itself, including what its claims are, without supporting it or those claims. What we have now is either straw men, covered in hedges, or has a screaming case of the WP:HOWEVERs. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact/opinion distinction is a clearly and unambiguously a core content principle; see WP:5P and WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV. With respect, the assertion that Wikipedia attempts to construct the best overview from the opinions of reliable sources and other such suggestions that Wikipedia should present opinion as fact are patent nonsense, the repetition of which is approaching WP:CIR. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

okay, let's put it like this: the opinion of any Wikipedia editor on what is fact and what is opinion is itself an opinion, and one that can be subject to bias, which is why we lean on the balance of sources to determine what to treat as fact, not individual editors. Artw (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No, actually. On Wikipedia, that's what consensus is; it's not one editor's opinion, it is what the consensus of editors are, which includes what past policies and guidelines as well as opinions of individual editors. That's why we are supposed to have discussions and !voting and the like. This is our role as a tertiary sources - we have to make such editorial decisions on what are reliable sources, which materials from RSes are appropriate to include, and so on to still write a neutral article that is an appropriate summary of the larger topic. Again, this is outlined in NPOV/FAQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs)

The consensus is the sources don't support you rewriting the article to support a factually dodgy POV. Artw (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

With respect, I would suggest that there is a wide consensus, per WP policy & guidelines on WP:NPOV, to support rewriting the article to document the various points of view; regardless of how dodgy they might seem to editors. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Except there is no consensus of the sources (unlike, say, the established shape of the earth where there is irrefutable evidence towards that). Yes, you have several predominant claims being made (such as GG being a harassment campaign) but these are also contested by other sources as well as the group that the charges are leveled at. As such, they are contentious statements, and per NPOV we don't treat the claims as facts; we don't eliminate those claims but simply attribute them as claims to the major press and don't take a side in the matter. We are required to write this way as a neutral work. It doesn't matter if the counterside is a dodgy POV, because we aren't judging the situation. This is what separates us from just simply mirroring what is said in the media, we actually have to present it in a neutral way, and the way GG has been handled by the press (as indicated by the above link) means that our job is not as straight forward as simply repeating the sources. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It might be useful, as you say you're actually interested in the topic and not merely trying to score rhetorical points, to take a look at some of the extensive literature on journalism. You're writing as if New Journalism is entirely new to you -- Tom Wolfe’s anthology came out 42 years ago! -- and as if the postmodern turn never happened, and that the turn away from postmodern epistemology also never happened. This gives your argument the appearance of tendentious special pleading -- that we waive NPOV for this article alone because the sources are all bias! bias! bias! -- when in fact you may merely be discovering for the first time that Pulitzer, too, is capable of being problematized. Perhaps I have done you an injustice.

Wikipedia's policy is indeed naively reliant on the utility of the accepted consensus of reliable sources, and yes, this is often problematic. This is an encyclopedia, and relies on notions of truth or at least utility that have been doubtful since Diderot and Descarte and untenable for a century. If you'd like to teach postmodernism to your fellow editors, the village pump is thataway ⇒ (and good luck with that).

In the meantime, Wikipedia is not going to be "hesitent," as you suggest it should be, to rely upon the consensus view of received sources. Press commentators since Carlyle and Marx have joined you in railing against the bourgeois complacency of this reliance. But if Wikipedia were to imagine that the reliable sources are all biased against Gamergate, the Marxists will point out that the reliable sources are demonstrably biased against the proletariat, fundamentalist will observe that the reliable sources are patently biased against Revealed Truth, and off to the races we will go. There’s a huge epistemological literature on the question; again, if you'd like to educate yourself that’s never a bad thing, and if you’d like to educate your fellow editors, the village pump is thataway ⇒ (and good luck with that, too).

Wikipedia is what it is: a digest of the reliable sources’ account of received opinion. That this problematic is certain, but there is no help for it. Of making many books there is no end, a preacher once said. There is no certainty; all is vanity. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not arguing against this statement "Wikipedia is what it is: a digest of the reliable sources’ account of received opinion." (emphasis mine). UNDUE/WEIGHT has to apply. I am not saying because of this new journalism where opinion and facts get mixed without clear bounds that we have to give more excessive weight to other sources. As I stated above, harassment associated with GG is the predominant viewpoint in mainstream, it is impossible to ignore as their stance of what GG is. But this is where I turn back to what you said, that we're looking to summarize the weight of the relevant opinions, and that's the point of the above article - that because of new journalism there are a lot things that are being reported in the words of these journalists in the tone of being fact but that are at their root opinions. And because of that, and that they are contested facts, per NPOV, we take care in ascribing such contentious claims as fact, so that we stay objective and neutral in the face of new journalism. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You mistake me -- or maybe you just seize on my use of "opinion" to score another high school debating point. Who can tell? I can’t. But “received opinion” is, in Wikipedia terms, a synonym for "fact": we acknowledge as scientists that all truth is provisional but these facts are what (almost) everyone agrees to be (almost) true. Reflect for a moment from whom (or Whom) we receive these received opinions. Other contested facts include the second law of thermodynamics, the reality of evolution, the historicity of the Holocaust, the meaning of My Little Pony . . . MarkBernstein (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No it's not. Opinion is opinion on WP, we don't dance around terms like that, and we take very careful steps to avoid having opinion reported as fact per NPOV least we break neutrality and objectivity. The methods of new journalism make it that we as a neutral source are not required to take what an RS says as fact at its face if it is clear that the statement is considered contentious by others. No one has a right answer for many of the open questions on GG, which is the usually case for any social controversy (like Occupy Wall Street, for example). It is opinions battling opinions. This is how we're supposed to report any controversy as long as it remains a controversy (which GG is, there's no evidence of it having ended), and particularly when the media itself is part of it, we need to be even more careful in how we tread. It doesn't make the mainstream sources any less important than they are, just that we cannot a priori assume they are reporting all facts just because the article lacks the "op-ed" byline. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I will disagree with the statement Wikipedia is what it is: a digest of the reliable sources’ account of received opinion, in the sense that it appears to be intended above. We document opinions as opinions, we don't simply repeat them because they are popular; there is no follow the sources policy or guideline.

I also suggest that it is a palpable false equivalence to suggest that matters about which there is scientific consensus (second law of thermodynamics, theory of evolution) or significant historical record & academic consensus (historicity of the Holocaust), are the equivalent to matters where we have only the utterings of a series of internet pundits each pushing their own agenda.

Opinions are like Nelsons, everybody's got ones. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

OK: you're not really interested in journalism or epistemology, I guess. If you believe that the New Journalism means that reliable sources need not be treated as reliable sources, you believe that Wikipedia policy is, and always has, contradicted itself and is meaningless. That seems a good summary of this argument you persistently make, and which has in all the many thousands of repetitions acquired no support anywhere. And a pony. 18:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of sources does not mean they are 100% accuracy or correct. It means they have fact checking to the best of their ability, but because of new journalism, in the presentation of the material can still be opinionated and skew facts or present opinions without support.

This goes back to a discussion about reviewing the sources from a few months ago. If you carefully read the most reliable sources , like the New York Times or Wa Post, they do not directly state some of the claims that others have made without carefully wording it as an opinion or an observation but not as fact. Less reliable sources (particularly when we get into the gaming media) are less prone to this meticulous checking, and hence they made claims as fact that we have to be careful about. Are they bad sources because of this? No, just that we have to recognize these should be stated as opinions and not as facts as NPOV directly outlines. This is particularly true that this is a social issue, there is no right answer here. There's predominant opinions, but that's it. Document the controversy, not become part of it by blindly accepting one side where there is clear contention from the other side(s) of the situation.

Also, you are now personally attacking me again, please stop immediately. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi MarkBernstein, I read through, and tried to make sense of the above, but, in faith, could not. Researching New Journalism and Advocacy journalism, and the long storied discussion of these in journalism & academic circles, I can't reach any conclusion other than that you're suggesting that actually, it's about ethics in journalism; but I'm not sure if that's an accurate reflection.

I'm certainly not seeing anything that indicates that we should present opinions as facts, in contravention of WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV, which seems to be the central point of Masem's concerns. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No, Masemt, I'm not attacking you. I've been trying to decipher your apparent discovery of modernist and postmodern thought, but that seems to have been a misunderstanding based n your chance use of terminology that, on other circles, has meaning. Here, apparently, it doesn't. My mistake; I'll try not to make that one again. RYK: if you're seriously interested in these questions, start with Eagleton, After Theory. Wolfe himself is always worthwhile as well. Have fun. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi MarkBernstein, Firstly, I thank you for the Eagleton recommendation; I have looked over some reviews of the work, and it looks most interesting and enlightening. I look forward to reading it.

Thinking through the questions on New Journalism, and the problems inherent with basing our articles on mixtures of fact and opinion, I am not sure that a deeper dive into the questions of modernism, post-modernism & post-post-modernism here necessarily adds to the article. I do consider WP's policies and guidelines to essentially cover this already - they require that we treat the portions that are fact as fact, and the portions that are opinion as opinion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Something to point out in light of what Masem is trying to get at, consider this from today, which bases the notion that this particular shooter was 'a Gamergate supporter' when anyone with half a lick of sense would check out the steam account mentioned and quickly realize this was entirely made up. Now consider the fact that this entire piece was based of one individual's statement, and that even if he hadn't been blatantly trolling them it would've still been taken in by these journalists. That's where citing these sources as fact and not opinions starts becoming a problem. There are several lines that take the word of one individual and state it as a fact, when in reality it's their opinion and their recollection of the events related to Gamergate. While it's not our place to try and figure out if Quinn, Gjoni, Wu, Totilo, Bain, etc are telling the truth, we should stick to "according to so-and-so", than to present their statements as without a doubt facts. I don't really care where your opinion lies on this matter, that's just good common sense editing.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Bryce Williams played online video games with the group known as Gamergate… I don't even know what to say. GamerPro64 14:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Many, many sources have reported on Quinn, Wu, and other gamergate victims. Each has found their claims entirely credible; I believe in fact that not a single major report in The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, Boston Magazine, have cast any doubt whatsoever on their claims. Yet, for some reason, this Gamergate talking point gets trotted out regularly on Wikipedia. Why would that be? Hmm.... I can't seem to put a finger on it. Anyone? MarkBernstein (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Please be civil. Being sarcastic and rude is not going to get us anywhere here. The point still stands that many things reported in this article are from personal accounts and we need to take that into consideration. Nobody's assuming any individual here is presenting a falsehood, but we shouldn't take it as absolute fact either. If there's a media consensus towards what this event is, we should be presenting that, and frankly I think that alone would smooth other a great many criticisms against this article because in its current form it is dictating what something is based off those accounts rather than summarizing the media's reaction towards the matter. And with this many individuals involved from all over, statements should be attributed to the person making them, not some assumption that because a website rallied behind the point it's an absolute.

Hell I've written enough character articles on wikipedia to know that over time consensus can change, or even never have existed at all and only been assumed. If you see that as a slight against you or against the individuals in this article as you indicated with your retort, I don't know what to tell you.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

We do need to be aware that the press does elevate the claims of victims when the victims are sympathetic towards the readership and/or those attacking the victim are not. (GG hits both sides here). The recent mess with Rolling Stone is evidence that sometimes bad reporting happens when such aspects come into play. This is part of the overall caution that we have to be aware of in new journalism. That said, in this situation, we have all three stating they have received harassment themselves (as opposed to someone else speaking for them). Per BLP policy we must assume this is true (they have received harassment) until clear evidence is made by the reliable sources against this. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

So what's the point here? First you say we should keep the Rolling Stone case in mind, then you say this is nothing like the Rolling Stone case? The issue here is that we do not to my knowledge have single sources (not even one)that completely denies Gamergate's role in harassment. From my reading of the sources, the writers who've written the most sympathetic RS pieces towards Gamergate (Bokhari, Young and Auerbach), have all acknowledged harassment associated with Gamergate. From Bokhari: "There has been an awful lot of hate on both sides of this divide." [12] From Young: "While the gamers' revolt has very legitimate issues, is (sic.) also true that it has been linked to some very ugly misogynist harassment of feminists."[13] From Auerbach: "It is imperative to stop Gamergate because it’s currently a troll’s paradise, providing cover for a whole host of bad actors, whether they’re pro-Gamergate, anti-Gamergate, or simply wantonly malicious."[14] Even the voices most sympathetic towards Gamergate amongst RS writers note the harassment done under its name. Unless we plan to go full solipsism, there is no reason not to state that supporters of Gamergate have harassed people as a fact. Brustopher (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it becomes a weird thing there with the stated extent: more than a few voices in this article present it as all consuming, while others acknowledge it's presence but a difficulty to attribute it exactly to members of the tag. I think that's where attribution of statements could help a great deal here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The specific point that I was commenting on is that a few of the more recent sources I located over the last week from right-wing papers beg the question if the claims of harassment by Quinn et al were faked, which I know is also a common theme at GG forums. Because Quinn et al all have self-reported that they have been harassed, but do not specifically name names outside of saying it is related to GG, then per BLP we really cannot even consider this stance in putting in doubts about the harassment as Mark outlined, unless we get a boatload of reliable sources that affirm otherwise. The larger point (mostly separate from this) those is to remember that in this new journalism, the goal of journalists is to draw eyeballs to their stories by writing for the benefit of their readership, and not necessary write neutrality. The most reliable sources like NYTimes, BBC, and WaPost, still maintain some of the old-school journalistic acts by keeping close to neutral, but when you start going off those marks, it is very easy to find sloppy reporting that favors victims like the Rolling Stone thing. As a tertiary source, we have to be fully aware of that when pulling information from these types of sources that they may be slanted. The GG situation provides a case where that slant is potentially large, due to the nature of the victims (female professionals), the fact this is over video games, and that the harassers appear to be 4chan-related young males with misogynist attitudes; it is not helped by the fact that journalistic integrity issues are part of the complaints here. It is very easy for new journalism to slip into non-neutral coverage of this type of story. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you have stating that the current sources are opinions or non-neutral or sloppy or slanted? Woodroar (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The one linked at the start of this, for example. But obviously you're not going to find journalists reporting on their own issues. We have to use common sense here as a tertiary source, and all this relates to is understanding when to label statements made by the press as claims rather than facts, not for insert things they or other RSes haven't reported on. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

An opinion piece on a questionable site and your own original research that reporting on GamerGate just has to be biased and so we should treat it all as opinion? I'll ask it again: what reliable sources do you have stating that the current sources are opinions or non-neutral or sloppy or slanted? Woodroar (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

As a tertiary source, we have every right to consider what sources are reliable (per WP:V and WP:NOR) and when they are speaking opinion or fact (per WP:NPV). We can't change what they say but we can write what they say as claims if the statements are considered contentious, which is the case with most of the situation with GG as stated by journalists involved with GG reporting in that article and from the Society of Professional Journalism. We don't require RSes to evaluate RSes as that is all BG material. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing in NPOV that says we get to downgrade facts to opinions whenever we like. In fact, it says specifically that we need to report opinions as opinions and facts as facts. The bulk of our sources consist of factual journalism, and treating them as op-ed pieces is a rather serious misrepresentation. Woodroar (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Woodroar, WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV requires that we treat contentious assertions as opinions and attribute them; and, consequently, we must do so. W.r.t the categorisation of the sources currently used, with respect, the assertion that they consist (solely) of factual journalism is not supported by an examination of those sources - the vast majority clearly consist of opinion or of a mixture of fact and opinion. This is true even for those sources which are from publishers which we would consider reliable for factual information, and even for those sources which are not clearly identified as opinion pieces. This is quite a normal occurrence; normal enough to have been mentioned in our policies & guidelines on NPOV & Verifiability. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Where are all these opinions? I just checked the first column of sources in the article and there were zero opinion articles. Should I check the rest? Because it's not up to us to say "yeah, that's a fact; no, that's an opinion". If a reliable source publishes a piece as factual journalism, whether it's a current event or an overview, we have to trust them. (To do otherwise is original research.) And this isn't a "conflicting assertions" situation, it's not 50/50 or even 75/25. Virtually all reliable sources agree on the facts. Calling them anything other than facts is misrepresenting the sources. Woodroar (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

NPOV is very exacting to this. If a RS makes a contentious claim, even if they word it as an apparent fact, we are supposed to report it as a claim. That does not "misrepresent" the source in any way, since we are saying "Source X claims this happens". This is documented more at WP:NPOV/FAQ particularly under "Writing for the opposition". Wikipedia does less harm by treating contentious statements as claims rather than facts. And no, just because the predominant opinion may be near universal among RSes, for a controversy like GG is, we are also supposed to document the more significant minority viewpoints too, which in this case is what GG have stated. It doesn't matter if they are 5% to 95%, we are still required to document the controversy (the only thing that ratio will impact is the amount of content we give towards the proGG per UNDUE) We as a group have to put aside any contempt we might have towards GG to write neutrally about it, understand how the sources have approached the subject, and how we document the situation without judgement. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that (it appears) you're suggesting we approach this article from the position that all claims are inherently contentious. The narrative or timeline or what-have-you of GamerGate is consistent among reliable sources, outside of a very few. I think we do a fine job of including those conflicting sources–as we do with the few sourced perspectives of GamerGate supporters–but the areas where sources contradict are minimal. I could be mistaken, but I don't recall any reliable sources claiming that harassment hasn't happened, or misogyny doesn't exist, or gamer identity isn't changing. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it really sounds like you're saying that "because of New Journalism" all sources are somehow tainted. As far as policy goes, WP:IRS doesn't warn us not to use sources after 1960. (And outside policy, this is neither the time nor place for a deconstruction of New Journalism, but the backlash against it was, in short, "well duh, objectivity in journalism is impossible and it's always been that way, this isn't new". For this exact reason, Society of Professional Journalists doesn't even include "objective" or "objectivity" in their ethics code anymore.) I agree that we shouldn't say that "GamerGate is the literal devil", but treating all sources as opinions does actually dilute what those sources state as facts. But here's where I AGF and allow that, perhaps, you didn't mean that we should do this throughout the article, but only where sources are in conflict with each other. Maybe you could provide some examples of what you're suggesting? Woodroar (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Woodroar, For questions of WP:NPOV & "objectivity", there is no suggestion made that sources are tainted or otherwise unusable, only that contentious assertions should be attributed; please see WP:NPOV/FAQ#There.27s_no_such_thing_as_objectivity for a good explanation of these aspects.

I'm also seeing a couple of lines of thought that might be underpinning the perceived issues w.r.t this aspect of WP:NPOV...

1. Granularity of "fact" vs "opinion" is at the publisher or source level - This is essentially the "New Journalism" discussion above & below, so I will not repeat it overly; suffice to say that sources may contain a mix of fact and opinion, the granularity of which is at the level of the assertion.
2. Conflation of "reliable sources for facts" with "validity of opinion" - This is (imho) a considerable problem, and is evidenced by discussions of sources being reliable or not reliable for opinions of their authors. That we consider the NYT or WaPo a reliable source for facts does not mean that we consider the opinions of their writers to be also fact. That we do not consider other publications to not be reliable for facts does not mean that we consider the opinions of their writers to be invalid or false.

W.r.t the assertion that the narrative ... of GamerGate is consistent among reliable sources, this is simply not supported by an analysis of those sources; see previous Talk page discussion of such an analysis by Rhoark. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, failure of or course granularity in separation of concerns is a perennial problem with peoples' applications of WP policy. On this page and everywhere. Rhoark (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that the common English idiom, "beg the question," means what Masem thinks it means. But of course I might be mistaken. Who can tell? And so who can possibly respond? (I will henceforth refer to this editor as M______ as he persists in using my first name as if we were great pals.)

I also notice that "right wing papers" -- we're talking Breitbart and John Birch right wing, I expect, or maybe the Stormfront right wing, because let’s face it if we were talking merely right-wing like the Le Figaro or the Chicago Tribune we’d be pretending they were centrist -- are now being propped up as a coequal weight with Reliable Sources. And once again we're talking about how the nasty liberal press is all bias, naming specific publications but without the least indication of what ethical lapses M_____ dreams they committed. And we have another accusation that named individuals committed the crime of filing a false police report, based apparently on M___’s original research into unnamed right-wing tabloids.

Whether it’s “easy” or not for the new journalism to slip into non-neutral coverage of “this type of story” is a fascinating question. Since the new journalism ended a quarter of a century ago, we shall never know the answer. I myself think that Hunter S. Thompson -- who is dead -- would prefer to slip into something more comfortable than this type of story. But perhaps M_____ is alluding to the contingent construction of meaning, or maybe he thinks "new journalism" is contemporary. It’s impossible to tell from the text, and he’s not answering the question.

Presently, this note and my notes upstream will again be featured in satirical posts on Gamergate boards, written by a Gamergater whose screen name commemorated the sweet, sweet music made by Nazi dive bombers as they strafed civilian socialists at Guernica. That, too, is intended to send a message; I wonder if M_______ and the admins have noticed that, and if they have, which admins endorse it and which admins simply wash their hands of it.

I’m waiting for the admins -- or someone -- to (a) redact the BLP violations above, (b) do something about this continual attack on Wikipedia editors, on-wiki and off, and (c) stop this interminable crusade to throw wikipedia out the window because bias. But, apparently, it's a lot easier to look the other way, isn’t it, and to deliver pious platitudes about assuming good faith despite a track record extending for an entire year and far more than a million words of calculated misogynist bile. As the fellow says, Have a great day! MarkBernstein (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is a personal attack. Do not comment on the contributor, comment on the content, period. You're also not assuming any good faith towards that other editor just based on their username.

We have clear sources that put forth the fact that journalists admit that the GG situation is being reported with a mix of fact and opinion, if this was not already obvious from how the story is covered, as long as you are looking for documenting the controversy and not trying to have WP take a side. Once again, it is not a violation of BLPTALK to talk about what other sources have said in context of improving the article. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It assuredly is a violation of WP:BLPTALK (and common decency, at long last) to insinuate that a named, living individual has committed crimes (and sexual indiscretions) on the basis of what an editors thinks he saw in some unnamed "right wing" papers or other sources that he openly admits are unreliable, unverifiable, and unusable and which are explicitly contradicted by a host of superb sources. And again, there is no personal attack: the attack is on the the incoherence and incomprehensibility of what has been written here. No one who has studied journalism, even superficially, would now claim that any subject, from the Gettysburg Campaign to the sexual overtones of My Little Pony, has been or can be covered without a mixture of fact and opinion; Gamergate in this respect differs not a whit from everything else in the encyclopedia. This is an observation I made many posts above in very plain English and to which you, characteristically, do not respond, choosing instead (to the extent any reader can discern just what these comments intend to express) simply to repeat the error in support of revisions that cannot be accepted. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

BLPTALK says it is acceptable to include claims made by other RS sources (which regardless of the fact they are right-wing papers are still RSes) to consider for inclusion or discuss as necessary. I certainly did not make the claim on my own, nor do I believe that claim, and side with you in keeping that claim out of the article. But it's not a BLPTALK violation to discuss those RS claims. And on your point of new journalism not only is there the above article, there is from 2009, from 2011, in 2010, 2013, and that's just the first page of google hits. New journalism or opinion journalism clearly exists and is in use today, and can be clearly seen in the coverage of GG. And it is a personal attack to try to discredit an editor by point out things like "sexual overtones of MLP" (which I know I had to include in the fandom article because it was covered by RSes). You're not supposed to talk or imply anything about editors, period, on talk pages of mainspace articles. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Understanding historical concepts and literary schools is not simply a matter of looking up the first page of Google hits. The New Journalism was influential. So was the New Criticism, which predates it for a half century. Opinion journalism, on the other hand, predates the New Journalism by several centuries; it's not the droid you're looking for, even if some other people abuse the term. An expert Wikipedian might be leery of relying on Wikipedia for such abstruse literary history, but here it is from Wikipedia’s lede: "The phenomenon of New Journalism is generally considered to have ended by the early 1980s". That, friends, is thirty years ago: Like A Virgin and One More Night were top of the charts, Amadeus was best picture, the Apple Macintosh had been on sale for several months, and Mike Trout would be born only six years later.

If M_____ has written anything about sex and My Little Pony, that’s news to me; like The Gettysburg Campaign, it was a shot at venture. (I can't believe I'm writing about writing about sex and My Little Pony; the Baudrillard Singularity Of The Meta must be imminent.) If M_____ has reliable right-wing sources for his insinuations about Zoe Quinn’s sex life and purported crimes, he might have identified them at once, and surely would have identified them after my previous speculation that they were either from the Breitbart fringe or the Storefront fringe. And it's convenient to constantly cry about personal attacks when you've got your very own platform in the wings constantly attacking your fellow editors, run by that charming fellow whose name commemorates the sweet, sweet music of Nazi dive bombers as they gunned down fleeing socialists, and about which M___ has, apparently, been too busy writing about his little pony to denounce. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Stick a fork in this thread; it's done. We are not going to relax Wikipedia's hard-and-fast policy on WP:NPOV simply because GG is not being portrayed here fairly, as determined by Masem. Binksternet (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet, Many thanks for your thoughts. With respect, I suggest that the shoe would appear to be, at least in part, on the other foot; or perhaps there are two shoes. A number of editors have asserted, above and elsewhere, that we should relax WP's hard-and-fast policy on WP:NPOV by documenting opinions and/or contentious statements as facts. Such assertions clearly do not align with WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC) updated - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Have they really asserted that? Because that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike any of the statements I've read above. Woodroar (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Almost No One Sided with #GamerGate

Almost No One Sided with #GamerGate: A Research Paper on the Internet’s Reaction to Last Year’s Mob - Research paper on reactions to gamergate with the conclusion: The results of this project suggest that the vast majority of people do in fact equate GamerGate with online harassment, sexism, and/or misogyny. More people see GamerGate as a toxic mob rather than a legitimate movement worthy of respect.

Somce it's on a blog I doubt we are going to be able to use it directly, however the its data set may be of interest. Artw (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Amateur research projects attempting to quantify Gamergate have come up here before. General consensus is not to use them. Also I heavily dispute the claim this guy is making that Wikipedia "Explicitly defines GamerGate as an anti-feminist harassment campaign."Brustopher (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. All his data set is is a listing of Alexa ratings for certain websites. Not that hard to find them anyway. GamerPro64 16:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Guardian interview with Sarkeesian

[15] Most of it covers opinions and stances we have already, but I've included a couple points that are new-ish: the phrase "actually, it's about ethics in journalism" as a meme that arose from GG (which I've been trying to find an RS for a long time with no luck), and the "locker room" concept that Sarkeesian believes the Internet is like that encourages such harassment/misogyny (we had something like this before but not directly connected to GG). There is another point she makes that is new but that I think we need to tread carefully in that she (or the interviewer) considers in broad terms that the events from Gjoni's post to the harassment as equivalent to "domestic abuse". We have to be careful here because if this statement is implying that Gjoni engaged in that, that's a BLP violation. I read that she's speaking to the broader situation but the way that section is worded (by the journalist, not Sarkeesian), it could be implied that Gjoni's being lumped into that too. Hence I would be very very cautious to include that. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I think Sarkeesian's opinion that the harassment is equivalent to domestic abuse is appropriate to include (just as we have attributed to others that claim the situation is like terrorism) as long as we're not engaging into BLP towards Gjoni with her opinion. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's one where I agree with you. I also read the statements about Gjoni as by the journalist rather than Sarkeesian, but it's uncomfortably close to statements from Sarkeesian that I feel it's best to leave that part out. Woodroar (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

NO: To clarify, Sarkeesian does not opine that the harassment is equivalent to domestic abuse. We cannot say that, because she does not say that. The article is perfectly clear:

She is frustrated by the way GamerGate has been covered in the media. “All the stories kept decentring the fact that it was domestic violence,” she says. Indeed, the movement was born when a 25-year-old software developer named Eron Gjoni posted a 10,000-word blog about his ex-girlfriend, video game designer Zoe Quinn. In the blog, he recounted the minutiae of their relationship and outlined her supposed wrongdoings and infidelities. Quinn has said, “It is domestic abuse that went viral, and it was designed to go viral.” (Gjoni linked to the blogpost in forums such as 4chan, well known for vicious online harassment.)"

The opinion is Zoe Quinn’s, which Sarkeesian is citing and with which she is agreeing, and the opinion does not concern equivalence at all. What this passage says (and what is undoubtedly the case) is that the harassment of Quinn, and thus the Gamergate controversy, begins with an episode of domestic abuse in which a rejected ex-lover recounted intimate details of a former girlfriend in public. This isn't saying that harassment is equivalent to abuse, it is saying that this campaign of harassment literally begins with a domestic dispute.

With respect to M____'s concerns about BLP, Sarkeesian clearly writes within the feminist tradition that holds the use of violent language and intimidation to constitute violence, and therefore that GJoni’s letter is ipso facto a violence done to its victim. No one is saying that Gjoni hit Quinn, but Sarkeesian is saying that his words were intended as blows and should be understood as such. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Since domestic violence or abuse is a crime, it is a BLP to state this (that was Gjoni did was domestic abuse) as a fact. Gjoni hasn't been charged for any crime (much less found guilty of it) so BLP says we can't repeat it here. And as for the nature of this article, the byline which reads "The word "troll" feels too childish. This is abuse" which appears to be a quote from Sarkeesian (even though its not repeated in the body) makes it seem like Sarkeesian is agreeing that GG harassment is like domestic abuse. However as I noted this could be the implication that the interview wants to carry the way the article is phrased. Either way, the connected with the statement to Gjoni makes it a subject to careful tread on BLP aspects around, and because of how poorly the difference is made in the article, its a topic we should avoid if the separation of events cannot be made to remove the BLP. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be under the impression that physical abuse is the only form of abuse that exists. It is not. Artw (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I would also add that threats that Quinn has received as a result of Gjoni's actions go up to and included threats of rape and murder. Artw (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

If the article was clear that Quinn or Sarkeesian compared the harassment and threats equivalent to domestic abuse (and yes, I agree this can be simply verbal/psychological aspects) and made no potential ties to Gjoni, then including that opinion would not be a BLP violation, since BLP does not protect anonymous groups like that. That's why the claim about GG being like terrorism is fine since there's no named individuals. But the way the article is written, it begs the question if Gjoni did any type of domestic abuse towards Quinn, which creates a BLP violation if there's no clear evidence (in this case, a legal decision) has been given. Maybe the intent wasn't there when Quinn stated it or when Sarkeesian agreed with that, but the end result of that article is that Gjoni's association in that statement is problematic and thus should be avoided. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The word "byline" does not mean what M______ thinks it means; a byline is not a subtitle. The phrase "begs the question" does not mean what M_____ seems to imagine it means, either. The allegation that the Zoepost was an instance of domestic abuse was made by Zoe Quinn in the Boston Magazine article, which is cited in this article to clarify Sarkeesian’s quotation which paraphrases it. Numerous sources report that Quinn lodged an action against Gjoni in the wake of the Zoepost, and that she obtained injunctive relief. Moreover, not every act of what feminists call "domestic abuse" is currently considered to be criminal in the US; indeed, not long ago, domestic rape was not a crime (cf. The_Forsyte_Saga).

It is striking, is it not, how some editors insist that oft-repeated allegations against Gjoni which are the subject of an ongoing legal action must not be mentioned here even when they are prominently discussed in major magazines and newspapers, but that insinuations about Gjoni’s former girlfriend, begun by Gjoni to punish her for leaving him and now sourced to unspecified "right wing papers" or to the writer’s personal knowledge, are entirely consistent with BLPTALK. That many Wikipedians continue to condone this appalling and shameful double standard remains troubling. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I have only seen two articles that even talk about any potential issues of Gjoni's relationship with Quinn prior to the Gjoni post (this and Boston Mag's), and that's not enough discussion nor evidence provided to state that Gjoni engaged in domestic abuse against Quinn to any degree (even as a claim by Quinn) without violating BLP. Discussing all this is also within the allowances of discussion on BLPTALK as no editor is creating this accusation but instead what a source has claimed. As long as the claim started from an RS, there is no issue in talking about whether the claim should be included under BLPTALK. That's as simple as it is, there is no double standard here. And for the last time stop personally attacking and harassing me. Don't talk about editors. Talk about content. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what Masem said about the domestic abuse thing in the article being innapropriate. However I do think there are some BLPTALK issues which I'm going to query on his talk page as its not related to this section. I'm removing the claims for BLP reasons (1rr exempt). On a side note the bit about domestic abuse isn't as focused on why the ethics claims are kinda dumb, as the other part quoted by Sarkeesian. Brustopher (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

No one (except possibly M___) is talking about what M____ so concisely describes as "any potential issues of Gjoni's relationship with Quinn prior to the Gjoni post". No one (except possibly M___ -- who could know?) is discussing whether or not Gjoni beat his girlfriend, or if his girlfriend beat him. The issue which Quinn raises in Boston Magazine, and to which Sarkeesian alludes in The Guardian, is that the ZoePost is itself a heinous act of domestic abuse; a man, perceiving himself to have been rejected by his now-former lover, exacts revenge by publishing a long and rambling letter detailing their intimate secrets and excoriating his former beloved for what he considers to be her indiscretions in what he patently confesses to be an act of revenge. Quinn regards this as "domestic abuse", Sarkeesian as "domestic violence": the violence Sarkeesian alludes to he metaphoric, threatened, or emotional. That it is necessary to explain this to adults -- much less adults who purport to be competent to edit an encyclopedia, beggars belief. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 30 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdraw per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 01:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

---

• Gamergate controversy → Gamergate
• Gamergate → Gamergate (ant)

– This article is the primary topic of "Gamergate", compared to the article about the ant. The article about the ant has only received ~200 views per month before August 2014, and has since received 4 to 6 digit page views per month. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence that most people typing in "Gamergate" are looking for this article, instead of the article about the ant. Long-term significance of this article should not be a concern because a year has passed since the beginning of the controversy, and this type of move has happened before (see Talk:Blank Space#Requested move 15 November 2014). This move would also prevent any arguments over the suffix for the article (controversy, movement, harassment, etc.) Obviously, a hatnote should be added to this article if the move is to take place. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 15:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I would strongly prefer to move the ant, leave this page in place, and let Gamergate redirect here. Numerous Web pages have links to the history of this article. As I understand it, the move would at one blow break all those links. Retaining the qualified name here also avoids a long and complex discussion about the notability of this shadowy anonymous movement. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, as both WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE weight – The ant is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the word Gamergate, and the insignificant and largely unknown controversy cannot take primacy from a important and long-standing variety of ant. This would be blowing the so-called "controversy" out of proportion, to the disdain of a genuine scientific topic. Note that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC specifies that the primary topic should have long-standing educational significance, which this article does not have. RGloucester — ☎ 15:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Significant coverage is about the events, implications, and responses rather than the GamerGate "movement" (or whatever) itself. Even without the ant, "controversy" would still be a more appropriate title. Woodroar (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per RGloucester. In the long run, this gamergate is just a facet of misogyny while the other is a thing that has existed since before human civilization.--Jorm (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose to avoid endless stupid "what is gamergate" discussions. Artw (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

As opposed to the endless and stupid "what is gamergate" discussions that the Gamergate fans insist we have right here, every two weeks? [grin]MarkBernstein (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Most of the "but you cannot define Gamergate because it does not define itself!" ones die pretty quickly when you point out the current article title is pretty all encompassing. Artw (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per RECENTISM, and that we nearly always give weight to scientific and humanities topics that will exist into perpetuity. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per RGloucester and Masem. — Strongjam (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Debate of Ethics Allegations

Currently, the first line of this section reads:

Academic researchers at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University described Gamergate as a "vitriolic campaign against Quinn that quickly morph[ed] into a broader crusade against alleged corruption in games journalism", noting that it involved considerable abuse and harassment of female developers and game critics.

My concern is that this feels like an attempt to drop a second claim into the first line which isn't needed. The original source makes two claims:

"The post provokes a vitriolic campaign against Quinn that quickly morphs into a broader crusade against alleged corruption in games journalism."

And:

"The movement ... involves considerable abuse and harassment—including rape and death threats—of female developers and game critics."

These are relevant claims. However, in discussing the claims about ethics, only the first is significant. Adding the second feels like an attempt to continue with a particular narrative, not related to the issue being discussed at that point. At the moment, almost two thirds of this article discusses the harassment issue. It isn't being ignored. I'd like to trim the line to only focus on the main issue being examined, to make it read:

Academic researchers at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University described Gamergate as a "vitriolic campaign against Quinn that quickly morph[ed] into a broader crusade against alleged corruption in games journalism."

That it also involves harassment is significant, but not in the lead of the ethics discussion. - Bilby (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, On balance, I am inclined to agree with your assessment. Seems like a case of the WP:HOWEVERs as used in this section. If desired, the source could be used in multiple places, covering each aspect as appropriate. If the source is accurately summarised as supporting both aspects, I would find concerns of WP:CHERRYPICK compelling if we were to only document one of those. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm extremely happy to see the source used to support the presence of harassment in the movement in the article. My problem is with the placement, rather than its use. - Bilby (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Having just reviewed the source, I would suggest that a) the in-text attribution needs improvement/clarification, specifically to mention the authors & publication/periodical; b) the source is a digest of other sources, without transformation, all of which we include already. Editors & readers may be inclined to concern that it is only included to provide a veneer of academic respectability. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

My concern is with providing the description of 'crusade against alleged corruption' without including the full, more illuminating description the source gives. That is- one without the other is a bit misleading as to the source's intention when describing it. (It also flows a little better into '...contend that their actions...') PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

While I agree about keeping the two parts of that statement together, there is an issue that we're leading the section we're talking (to some degree) in the pro-GG with a highly negative statement about GG. This statement should be included, but after we have presented the GG side or where we discuss where sources dismiss the ethics claims. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I have three concerns with it as it stands. First, it reads like two separate claims. "GG morphed into an issue about ethics" and "GG involves harassment and threats towards women". Both are true, but they aren't necessarily connected. If that's the case we can treat them as two separate claims, quote one in the ethics section, and the other in the harassment section, and we won't be doing a disservice to the first claim by not mentioning the other. Alternatively, if they are intrinsically connected, then I agree with Masem that they don't make a good led sentence. The lead sentence should define the issue, not evaluate it. So a simple statement that GG claims to be concerned about ethics is sufficient. Finally, I need to take Ryk72's point into account. This is not academic investigation into GG, but a summary of a piece by Kaplan. We'd be better off using Kaplan directly (as we do), than presenting this as an academic finding. - Bilby (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no "GG side"; Wikipedia reports what the reliable sources report, which is what Gamergate demonstrably has done. The difficulty with the first Berkmann claim is that (a) it's not clear how the "vitriolic campaign against Quinn" morphed, or in fact that it did morph, (b) it is not clear what a campaign against perceived (imaginary) violations of ethics in journalism has to do with Quinn, and (c) it is easily demonstrated that the harassment of Quinn continued and persists, while the supposed “crusade” against “alleged corruption” is very hard to see, since it appears almost exclusively to deflect attention to the criminal conspiracy against Quinn. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a GG side, many many RSes have said this exists; they question the validity of their claims to be about ethics, but is not saying it doesn't exist. If there is no other side, then there is no controversy, and that begs why there is even 200+ sources and this article. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I would be cautious about dividing the topic up into clear sides. Most of the sources that go into depth on its character tend to agree that it isn't easy to define; and there's broad agreement that many people involved in the controversy have different goals (conservatives pundits exploiting it for their own ends, culture warriors determined to strike a blow against what they consider their ideological enemies, trolls who simply enjoy the excuse to harass people and so on.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that it would be silly to try and paraphrase or quote the first sentence without covering the sentence immediately after it; in context, the two sentences clearly convey an overall commentary on the nature, character, and practical results of the "crusade against alleged corruption." The real problem comes from the fact that it was dropped at the top of the section (above the introduction), which both gave that source undue weight and which left it without any real broader context. Dropping it down to the second paragraph puts it clearly in the context of numerous other commentators who have discussed the topic in the same way. --Aquillion (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The Mary Sue should probably not be cited as a reliable source

I've beaten around this bush already, but I'm going to go out and cite this recent article as a bit of evidence that The Mary Sue is probably not the most reliable of sources. Just call it a hunch but frankly if this source were to pop up in a GAN or even FAN on a character article I'd be questioning the hell out of it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think I'm missing something. How does that article indicate unreliability? Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Perhaps you can be more specific? — Strongjam (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well there's the fact nowhere in the article does it state this is the author's opinion. Even on services like Gawker that run such stories, they are presented with that disclaimer. Instead the title is literally saying "this is fact", when the entirety of the research here is based on synthesis and *one line*, and it's being promoted by TMS in it's header. I think at the very least that should raise some flags for some folks as to just how reliable a source this website is and suggest further looking into before we cite them, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you're really reaching here.--Jorm (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man, with all due respect: no. Dumuzid (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

So you would cite this as a viable source for Samus Aran?

Yes, I am openly questioning the editorial process of this website and stating it appears more as an opinion blog than a reliable source for wikipedia.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

As Jorm said, seems like a reach. From the last paragraph of the article, "That there’s been so much discussion around a throwaway quote in a Metroid strategy guide shows how desperate LGBTQ gamers are to find faces and stories like their own in games." The point of the article is not "Samus is a transgender woman", but that LGBTQ gamers are desperate for representation in video games. — Strongjam (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, assuming you could overcome WP:UNDUE (this one article is not enough I think,) then, yeah, it could be a potential source. Although attribution would be required as the source itself says this is a contentious claim. — Strongjam (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Strongjam, in all honesty are we outright ignoring the fact the article's title is stating "Samus is a transgender woman", and telling us to "deal with it"?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Again I need to bring up, what proof of any editorial oversight is there on this website? Because I am finding none other than a list of staff.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:RSN is probably a better place to take this. — Strongjam (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair point, I'll pursue this there then.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing in this article that raises any question about the editorial process of The Mary Sue. A writer interviews artists and writers about the background of a character, and they respond with useful quotations. The publication has editors, assistant editors and a publisher. This argument is frivolous and a waste of the project’s time. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't you say the same about the Spiked (magazine) article? "We have nothing that raises any question about the editorial process of Spiked. A writer interviews three women involved – a developer, a hobbyist and a journalist, and they respond with useful information. The publication has editors, assistant editors, and a publisher. Mark Bernstein's argument is frivolous and a waste of the project's time."

We should get used to the fact that, more and more in the available WP:RSes, the scales are tipping in the #Gamergate controversy to a two-sided story which is not only about that but also about "a consumer revolt against misconduct in the video-games press"; "game reviewers more interested in logrolling than in producing honest reviews" and ideologues interested in imposing a radical political narrative on a hobby that wants none of it. To maintain a NPOV, we have to make a good-faith effort to tell that side of the story as well, not just this one. Chrisrus (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That’s a dandy WP:SOAPBOX you're on there! With regard to your question about Spiked, they write that “Spiked has an open door policy" which suggests an unconventional editorial policy but may simply reflect a willingness to receive unaccented submissions. It is clear that Spiked is a partisan magazine -- it grew out of Living Marxism -- which may limit its reliability, especially as to WP:UNDUE and its concerns. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Berstein for the love of pete please assume good faith and cease with the personal attacks.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Huh? There's no personal attack. That particular post (which was a personal attack, on me, incidentally) was also a a coatrack soapbox of speculation about future trends in the media and the impact those trends might someday have on this topic; I gently and succinctly reminded everyone that this isn't the place for that. Nothing I wrote (as opposed to what was written about me) can conceivably be construed as referring to good faith, bad faith, or the Catholic faith: do you love St. Peter, Kung Fu Man? I’m pretty sure there's a policy against spurious complaints, but if you do have a complaint to make, WP:AE is thataway ⇒. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)