Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Edit request on 06:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Change the photo of Zoe Quinn in the article from File:Zoe Quinn - GDC 2014.jpg to File:Zoe Quinn Car 2014.jpg, as it is preferred by the subject and slightly more flattering than the candid photo where she's holding a bottle of beer.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As a sidebar, while these photographs have been uploaded with the express permission of the subject, is there some way we can request that she provide a simple portrait photograph of herself rather than these expressive and artistic selfies?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

She posted the pictures + permissions on Twitter, so it might be possible to ask her via Twitter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I had to make my Twitter private because the Gamergate hordes were angry at the shit I was writing here and as of 12 hours ago they still are.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"As a sidebar", I'm entertained by the blatant admission of partisan bias from both of you here. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If Gaters are going to harass people for trying to uphold Wikipedia policy, then "Gamergate hordes" is putting it very mildly indeed. As another sidebar to any admins patrolling CAT:EP, I can't act on this because I'm involved. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The picture proposed looks extremely unprofessional for an Encyclopedia, the picture right now is of good quality and at actual gaming event. It doesn't seem to be a "candid" picture as you say, she's smiling. Should we replace any picture on Wikipedia because the subject thinks it makes them look better? That looks like another attempt at controlling the narrative, what's wrong with drinking beer? She's an adult. Loganmac (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What is your problem? The photo we have had on Wikipedia for the past several weeks/months/whatever is a terrible photo. It's not the best quality. It just barely depicts the subject. Wikipedia articles regularly replace these kinds of photos for ones that better depict the subject and are more flattering. The ones Quinn supplied for Wikipedia aren't optimal but they're better than what we have now. Switching it for a different photo is not "controlling the narrative".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart / Yiannopoulos

Spectator, New Statesman, Week, Times, Metro, Spiked, Verge, RealClearPolitics and Reason, Vulture, Stuff, Inquisitr, Washington Post, Metaleater, Forbes, CNN, Recode, Chinatopix, Ars Technica, Forbes again, pocketgamer, tportal, Totalbiscuit and video games publications EICs Janelle Bonanno and Greg Tito

I think this makes a clear case for notability. Particularly, there seems to be a focus on how Breitbart / Yiannopoulous got involved early in the controversy and spread the tag, and on the leaked emails of the GameJournoPros list. Both of these topics should be in the article. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yiannopoulos and his role in GameJournoPros seems fair to mention but given how little impact that had on the resulting situation as well as still being an unfounded accusation (there's a big gap of logic from a mailing list of game journalists discussing their work, and purposeful collusion to censor the story as the claims have made) we can't give it a lot of weight. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"there's a big gap of logic from a mailing list of game journalists discussing their work, and purposeful collusion to censor the story" - which is covered by actual analysis of the actual discussion. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This is something Yiannopoulos invented in his coverage of the group. Every other person who examined the list did not identify any wrongdoing by anyone. Yiannopoulos is someone who professionally stirs figurative shit for a living and the website he writes for has consistently warped the facts in various cases to make stories.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. Erik Kain had some concerns, as did ChinaTopix. Orland himself admitted some of his behaviour was unprofessional. Willhesucceed (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hasn't it been established that the GamesJournoPros list doesn't mean jack squat in the long run and Yiannopoulos was acting just as he always does on Breitbart which is to say making shit up for publicity?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As some of the more mainstream summary reports of late have mentioned the discovery of this list which set some in motion some other aspects, a sentence or two mention is fine, but we don't need to dwell on it. (This arguably is also true now of TFCY issue too, it's a minor point in the larger narrative). --MASEM (t) 16:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's noteworthy. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What they say about Breitbart/Yiannopoulos: "Yiannopoulos of Breitbart London published an article containing emails ...(in which he) suggested collusion between these journalists ... (He later) also published the full exchange of emails, which provided a more nuanced look at the situation ... All told, (the full collection of e-mails) appears to be a largely civil conversation between professionals." and "he leaked a trove of basically anodyne emails between game journalists -ironically, Yiannopoulos had little but sneering contempt for gamers before he spied a chance to make some right-wing converts.)" and "Truly odd, fascinating headline there: “Feminist bullies tearing the video game industry apart.” The mainstream response to B/Y is pretty much "yawn, nothing there", "hmmm, some presentation out of context -not exactly what you would expect from a journalist purportedly expounding on journalistic ethics" to "someone saw an opportunity to strike gold and get a rabidly tech savy audience by only reversing his opinion of them" to "yowsa! can you believe he is blaming the victims of the death threats????? " I am not really sure how you wan to fit that into the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's like Kain wrote in Forbes in September: "Some are crying for more ethical journalism while embracing completely biased and one-sided coverage of the event so long as it conforms to their own biases". Mr. Y seems to fit this to a T.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

And then there is this It is also worth pointing out that Delingpole tells his readers to search for a number of - abysmal and hateful - pieces on GamerGate by a man he employs as a columnist at Breitbart, without disclosing their relationship. The irony is noted.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest at the top of "Role of journalists" we place:

Milo Yiannopoulos was the first to cover the controversy early news coverage of the controversy, in which he criticized the politicization of video game culture, and with leaking correspondence from GameJournoPros, an email list where members of the video game press discussed industry matters. Kyle Orland, the creator of the list, responded to the leak on Ars Technica, admitting that he had acted unprofessionally in some correspondences. Most members of the press saw the list as largely benign.

References

Willhesucceed (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

kind of missing the major points of all the reliable sources coverage of his "work" , aren't you? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You are really cherrypicking the content that sheds the positive light on Yiannopoulos's writing when TRPoD has pointed out that everyone else doesn't think anything he's revealed is worth much in the long run and also how he previously referred to gamers as "nerd rapists" and "dorky weirdos".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to improve it, suggest changes. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, like your whole proposed addition is just singing praises and casting the whole of the list in a bad light. Yiannopoulos may have inserted himself into the debate, but it does not seem like this proposed addition accurately depicts what has happened.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Your version is a bit POV there. It makes it sound like Orland copped to what Yiannopoulos was saying, when the truth is that he defended the list and said he felt it wasn't a big deal. Many commentators agreed on that front. We should note that Fudge weighed in as well, with Ryan Smith being more on the other side. We also have sources agreeing with the concerns about the list, so that should be mentioned as well.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Orland did admit he acted improperly on the mailing list in some instances. I don't know quite how to phrase it. If somebody has a better way to write the paragraph, or things they want to add, I encourage them to do so. I changed it a bit. Is it better now? Willhesucceed (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

[1] seems to confirm that Milo has completely moved out of the role of "journalist" into the position of participant/advocate and toss any charade out the window. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Since no one's commented on my suggested paragraph further, I'm going to assume it's acceptable. Willhesucceed (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's still not acceptable in any way. Silence does not mean consensus. Also I apologize for all the edit conflicts I just went through.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you please help me to improve it then. I believe this is my third request now. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it should be added at all in the first place because it makes statements that are not supported by the whole of every other source out there that criticizes Milo's actions in making a mountain out of a molehill.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What would you put into the article about Breitbart/Yiannopoulos instead? Willhesucceed (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Something minimal that says he leaked the list, the Ars Technica guy's response, and plenty of sources that say that the list is benign.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I added another two sources. Willhesucceed (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree on this Willhesucceed, GJP not being on the article is just a clear example of controlling the narrative Loganmac (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not "controlling the narrative". No one other than Milo and the Gamergaters think that it's important.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've loaded up on the disagreeing sources. Good enough? Willhesucceed (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Far too much detail about a point that is clearly a minor footnote in the larger narrative, looking back at what we know now. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Could someone else post an example of what they'd want? I keep making changes to it and everyone keeps saying, "Mm, nah" without actually helping me improve it. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not wanted or warranted at all. That's the issue. It's something that the supporters of Gamergate laud as something that shows that they're right about something when everyone who has investigated the list and their claims see that it's nothing. There's nothing in there other than one person saying "I probably shouldn't have said this but oh well".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You already said you'd include it if X, so show me what X is. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Arguably, a sentence like "Allegations of possible collusion in the media was drawn by Milo Yiannopoulos based an internal mailing list between several gaming journalists that had discussed how to handle the Quinn story including limiting forum discussions on the sensitive matter, but this was determined to be a manner of standard practice within the industry." --MASEM (t) 20:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

That's all that's needed Loganmac (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Running With Scissors, Postal devs just recently mentioned the GJP thing "they actively discuss how to coordinate their actions and which games to give coverage to" [2] Loganmac (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

New form:

Allegations of possible collusion in the media were drawn by Milo Yiannopoulos based on an internal mailing list between several gaming journalists, that had discussed how to handle the Quinn story including limiting forum discussions on the sensitive matter, but this was determined to be a manner of standard practice within the industry.

References

Okay, how's this? Willhesucceed (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This still doesn't address the fact that no one thought the list was inherently wrong and criticism of Milo's accusations.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This ought to be included sooner or later, Destructoid editor-in-chief just quit because of the shitstorm involving GameJournosPro and a writer getting fired and blacklisted. Don't know if I can link because it's not RS and it's borderline BLP but William Usher's blog, the oringal GJP leaker has an extensive article on this with screenshots and all Loganmac (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Mercedes Benz pulls advertising from Gawker

I really hope a media outlet mentions this, but this is as huge as the Intel thing.

It has just been confirmed a few minutes ago, obviously still no news, I'll just wait Loganmac (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I have also seen this, but i do not think its directly correlated to Gamergate as such. This was an, excuse my language, an idiotic statement from a senior official at Gawker, where he litteraly tweets that we wants to bully some nerds. This happened on bully awareness day(month?). I do not think it will be many people supporting this, gg or anti-gg as such.--Torga (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Eh, nah, it is definitely related to GamerGate. They were invoking it towards GamerGate and GamerGate supporters drew attention to this and bombarded advertisers with screen-caps of those tweets and those by other staff at Gawker Media.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not directly related. Mercedes is pulling out because of the tweets promoting bullying. I'm fairly certain that even if those tweets didn't mention GamerGate at all, Mercedes still would have pulled out, provided it was brought to their attention. 24.192.67.45 (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If it gets attributed then it can be discussed in the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

No mainstream note of yet, just Adland.tv: http://adland.tv/adnews/mercedes-pulls-advertising-gawker-network/1636503170 2601:B:3100:5E9:5134:24FA:9465:A107 (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yiannopoulus seems to have confirmation. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Also this but I'm not sure if it's admissible. Hope I did that right. AnyyVen (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably not usable. And Milo is still questionable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Something tells me Erik Kain will be among the few covering this soon, it's hilarious that the guy saying bring back bullying kept on mocking people yet when Mercedes pulled of he gave a half-apology Loganmac (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What's not hilarious is that you feel the need to discuss living persons as if this is a forum. Woodroar (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No reliable sources have turned up to verify this, and Max Read, the current editor-in-chief of Gawker, seems to be pouring cold water on the issue, as he belives that Mercedes may not have been an active advertiser in the first place. Eventually we'll get independent confirmation one way or the other. - Bilby (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

A Jalopnik writer has stated on Twitter that Mercedes hasn't advertised on Gawker in four years. Either way, as Bilby noted, we can wait for reliable sources to comment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone who handles some of their digital campaign states that Mercedes has ordered Gawker to be blacklisted. I wish it weren't the weekend. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if that's the case, it wouldn't be "pulling advertising" if such ads haven't existed in years. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The EIC didn't say they weren't advertising, he said he "thinks" they weren't. Their sponsors list stated otherwise. They have now taken down their sponsors list.

This is from GamerHeadlines probably not RS "This has caused Mercedes Benz to pull out all advertising from the network, and many GG celebs such including the recently declared cancer free John Bain (aka Totalbiscuit) to set up fundraisers for anti-bullying organisations." John Bain donated more than $3000 to PARCER [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganmac (talk • contribs) 14:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerHeadlines is not a reliable source. This may be worth mentioning when there is independent confirmation, which I'm sure will come soon one way or the other./ It is all moot, of course, given that the article is protected, so there's no rush. - Bilby (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Still no news on the Mercedes stuff, but Gawker's certainly sweating. Jim Romenesko, journalist: link. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like they were advertising, and they're advertising again. [4]. I'd like to take these current claims of lost advertisers carefully, as the GG arguments may not have a long-term impact if the advertisers feel that they have been mislead or only received part of the story. - Bilby (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Jeff Gerstmann says "no thanks" to pro-Gamergaters

So when "GamerGate" rose up to cover over a campaign of harassment with a veneer of concern for the ethics of games journalism, it more or less set off every single disgust alarm I have. Though I'm sure some good people have been roped into this mess under this guise, the ethical concern portion of all this is largely a farce, a fallacy. - Jeff Gerstmann

Even though he never weighed in on any of this until now, the Gameragte folk, e.g. Brietbart, cited his 2007 firing as the kind of "journalistic ethics" transgressions they were rallying around. That bubble just got popped, it seems. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not so much on Gerstmann's point, but that this is the second major VG review site (that I'm aware, haven't checked others) for the site's EIC or primary contributor to put an official word on the site's stance on the matter (Polygon yesterday), and I expect to see this trend continue, and importantly to this article, be the subject of mainstream sources that outline the stance that VG sites are taking wrt to GG. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, and the mainstream sources will ignore all the sites that support GG, all the people who support GG, and won't even bother to interview or engage them. Masem, you're not even trying anymore. This article's going to go to shit. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I am speaking of rebalancing the substance on the narrative as more details come in, putting less emphasis on initial parts of the events and focusing on the larger picture, and still taking out excessive opinion - in this case, I would not include any specific statement from Poly or GB or the like, but if the mainstream press notes that most of the VG sites have spoken out in an official statement against GG, that we should include as outright factual information. We cannot do anything to give more time to proGG if no mainstream press site is going to give them fair balance to this. (And also keep in mind, this article is still locked down, no one has made any changes for it for about a week I think now). --MASEM (t) 17:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

We follow the reliable sources, Mr. Will; no more, no less. Some have been saying this since day 1, the regarding the "veneer of concern for the ethics of games journalism". This is reality that mainstream sources are recognizing. Tarc (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And while I will continue to try to fight to provide a reasonable balance on this article to both sides within the scope/ratio that the media (mainstream) reports on, I have to be brutally honest that the trend in the mainstream media (not VG media) is going towards a point where I can't even argue for inclusion of proGG points, due to how the press is taking the recent threats and harassment to reflect on the entire group. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The rules pretty much allow editors to do anything they need to do to make a proper article, so we can go outside mainstream sources.

Has Wikipedia never addressed the problem of media bias? We just report only what they report, facts be damned? Willhesucceed (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

We're supposed to mirror what high quality reliable sources say, not interpret that , meaning that unless there's a well-demonstrated media bias, we can't address that. That said, what is happening now is not a media bias; the VG press reporting on all this - since the harassment continues against those developers and other similar tactics, are going to have a general bias that we should avoid their sources when we can, but the mainstream media, like New York Times, etc. are reporting as they seen it with a common consideration of what is appropriate human decency - which harassment of people (particularly women) does not fall under. And as reported by other sources, this stigma of the actions that a few are doing are hurting any chance of proGG getting a fair deal by the press due to that. We can recognize that, but our hands are tied from a sourcing aspect. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This is like not discussing Muslims because ISIS. Might as well delete the entire article for the worth it has now. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If you were expecting this article to promote the proGG side, that's not happening. And your anology is false as in that situation, there are Muslins that have clearly separated themselves from any claimed cause ISIS has and have openly asked for discussions for peaceful solutions; several media commentators have said the same about those in the proGG side that want media ethics concerns to do a similar separation and condemnation of the harassment but there's no sign of that happening, so the media's going to group them all together. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I expected the article to be accurate, or at least for editors to know what they're editing. Gamergate are the first to report harassment to Twitter and the FBI. They even tracked down the guy who was sending death threats to Sarkeesian. They gave $70000 to get women into game development, $5000 for depression, $15000 for bullying, and are currently raising money for feeding programs. Gamergate's detractors are doing what? Meanwhile, Daniel Vavra, Jennifer Dawes, and every other indie developer who's come out in support of Gamergate have been blacklisted from the industry. The article is one thing, but let's drop the pretense on the talk page. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please list mainstream sources that document these pieces. Mind you, I know these are said to exist but this is from sources that are questionable even without considering the GG events, much less usable here. We're not following policy if we have to balance mainstream coverage of the antiGG side (which is plentiful at this point) with blog posts, reddit threads, and twitter replies - that's the very definition of FRINGE problems. (Again, I will stress the point that others in the media have fully recognized that other media organizations do not see any of these attempts to clear the GG name/cause as positive or newsworthy as long as they have not fully distanced themselves from the few doing the harassment and death threats; we @ WP have our hands tied if they choose to ignore those for that reason) --MASEM (t) 00:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Add Eurogamer to the "official statement about GG" pile [5]. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And Game Informer [6]. Still no third-party source that highlights this current drive. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Unprotect this article

In the 7 days before this article was fully protected, the article saw this evolution, in the 7 days since, it has only seen this. This is despite Gamergate having made the front page of the New York Times. In the last week, there has been more coverage of the issue in a wider variety of sources.

With the talk pages archiving every 2 days, the entire subject of Brianna Wu's harassment has been moved almost entirely to the archives without ever having been addressed in the article.

Yes, there is going to be trolling/abuse/BLP violations/reverts - but there's already a bunch of admins watching this and there's discretionary sanctions in place. Reduce the protection level, and just get block happy. This article is the top ranked Gamergate search term, but it's out of date, it's time to let Wikipedia do its work. - hahnchen 19:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Before unprotection, there needs to be a serious (and binding) discussion about the POV tag, seeing how it was the source of the last...or if not the last then one of the recent...protections. It cannot remain like a Scarlet Letter for as long as a handful of actual editors (i.e. non-SPAs) simply disagree with the status quo but are unable to gain consensus for their changes. Tarc (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That was probably a slight at me, but I say remove the tag 'cause fuck it. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I would rather see us figure out what the approach needs to be, and that's going to be tied to the mediation request that is currently open. The tone of what GG is has changed, and much what is written now really is minor details, in addition to overweighing the antiGG side. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That Mediation request is not going to happen.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not all parties have to agree to mediation for the mediation committee to accept it. I would not assume automatically it won't be accepted (doesn't mean it will, either). --MASEM (t) 23:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm kept completely quiet waiting for one person to actually tell me what GamerGate is so that we can actually write an article. Currently this is a manifest mess of commentaries and opinions. It is very far from encyclopedic. Koncorde (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Gamergate is a misogynistic movement of exclusively straight white cissexual male neckbearded virgin right-wing extremist Aryans that is using the $100 000 it donated to charity and concerns over journalistic integrity as a ploy to attack women." ~ Wikipedia article 2014 Willhesucceed (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I need to take a break from this article, clearly. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, what drew me into any of this was the fact that I came here first looking for a definition of Gamergate, and failed to get one, let alone a coherent one. And it does, for the record, fail to cover the myraid claims of Gamergate ("all" sides), be they legitimate or not. It is, in my opinion and now experience, fairly one-sided. I could care less about "pro" or "anti" gamergate, but there seems to be a pretty obvious and ironic bias that prevents this article from being as informative as it should be. Bad attitudes also pollute the atmosphere in several cases. People who disagree with antiGG sources seem to very quickly get branded as not only part of the movement but with several other distasteful features as well. AnyyVen (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been saying since the beginning that all this article needed was what its proponents says, and what its critics say in separated paragraphs Loganmac (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no real "anti" or "pro" Gamergate. That is just something the Gamergate movement wants there to be so they can make themselves victims. There are people who support the movement and those that are critical of aspects of it. There is no "bias" that can ever be solved because any negative coverage Gamergate receives for the vocal minority within its ranks it will automatically assume that there is an inherent bias against them because their preferred coverage cannot exist so long as there is no centralized movement and instead just several hundred people on Twitter saying the same thing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

News flash, unbiased and proper reporting is supposed to give both sides of a controversy. When half the reporters covering this are actually part of said controversy it's bad journalism Loganmac (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

News flash: The only people deciding that there are sides and bias are the gaters like yourself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There are sides to this issue, just like there are sides to every issue that's this big. It's especially evident with the popularization of the hashtag #StopGamerGate2014. Nathan905RB (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, not per se. However, there are definitely groups for, against, and neutral to Gamergate, and those against have used a number of different tags and names including, it seems primarily, the Gamergate tag itself. So I've merely adopted that convention for ease of communication.AnyyVen (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong's hit the problem. What GG is is unknown; those that support it have not made any clear indication of what their actual goals are beyond "journalistic ethics". And because there is a minority that continue to harass women, it taints any attempt to actually define it. See all recent mainstream articles that fail to give any definition of it that is brief and to the point. --MASEM (t) 23:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that *all* of the "journalistic ethics" issues that GamerGate raises end up boiling down to "SJW journalists are ruining games by talking about sexism" and "indie developers have Patreons to support themselves" rather than "multi-billion-dollar AAA publishers with multi-million-dollar marketing budgets are buying positive press" has not helped the movement in its quest to define itself as something other than a retrograde backlash against those seeking to diversify the video games conversation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Running risk of being a forum, I would concede that the end goal of Gamergate is vague. "Ethics in journalism" is very indistinct and there's no real concerted framework for what they want to achieve. As such, seems to leave it very open to interpretation, making any "vocal minority" of harassers the most obvious target. AnyyVen (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The protection of this article is not the issue. there are many articles under protection that evolve and grow under protection. all it takes is users instead of ineffectual slapping of yet another section and yet another link, making an actual concrete content proposal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Hahnchen that the article is embarrassingly out of date at this point. Let's lift the full protection and go to semi-protection. Keep the PoV tag on until we get things sorted, but in the meantime we can get back to editing. I'm confident that all the established editors here can proceed with restraint, taking disputed issues to the talkpage as-needed. --Elonka 19:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Dreadstar: - Since you've protected the page, the talk pages have generated 400+ kb of noise without any actual content. There are already discretionary sanctions in place, there are plenty of admins watching this article, so let's open the article to productive editing and stop this pointless talk-page noise. - hahnchen 19:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Failure to successfully arrive at a consensus for any edit requests in all of that talk page discussion would seem to me to be an argument against unprotection. Protected does not need to equal stagnant, if there is consensus for improvements. And if there isn't, what good will unprotection serve?--Trystan (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because this talk page goes nowhere, doesn't mean the article doesn't. See the links at the top of the section for before and after snapshots of protection. - hahnchen 23:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Harassment of Gamergate supporters

Vice

Inquistr

Kotaku

Forbes

HuffPost Live interviews with Gamergate supporters and with members of the video games press

TotalXbox

Computer Base

Reason, which Business Insider says is "sober" reading.

Techcrunch

Slate

Translated: women who support Gamergate are "stupid" and "self-hating misogynists".

Willhesucceed (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No longer really matters, given the continuing shift away from the "but ethics" sham. Defending oneself and others from harassment is not in itself a harassing act. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep swimming against the tide there, you'll only end up tired. The overwhelming majority of the rape, murder, and such type of threats have come from the advocates of gamergate. That some of those types got a smidgen of blowback is at best a footnote. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"Just last night I deleted a youtube comment from a user who posted my home address and said he’d kill my wife and leave me to mourn" seems hardly like "defense" and quite a lot like "harassment." This is kind of what I was getting at - this Wikipedia article makes the whole debacle seem very cut and dry: one side is perpetuating a campaign of misogynistic hatred and the other is comprised of women and their supporters being harassed. I can understand if no reliable secondary sources are available, and that just because there are, for instance, two sides in a controversy doesn't mean they get equal weighting, but this feels like purposeful evasion. I could understand this reasoning if participating in a debate on the topic, but not objectively documenting it. AnyyVen (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

An issue to consider is that the harassment of Quinn and others can be easily seen on Twitter, and though various means, readily shown to be coming from a small number of ppl that claim their actions under the name of GG. The harassment of proGG people, on the other hand, is far less visible, and tracking those that do it is near impossible to affirm that antiGG people are doing it. As such, while the proGG people are being harassed, we cannot say it is one side harassing the other, and that's why there's almost no sources that cover it. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Understood - that's why I mentioned reliable secondary sources, because unless Inquistr suddenly supercedes Al Jazeera in terms of credibility, there really aren't any that address that Gamergate supporters are receiving similar threats, let alone who they may or may not be coming from. AnyyVen (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I can understand doubting the reliability of HuffPost Live, Kotaku, Forbes, and Inquisitr, but Slate, Reason, and Business Insider? Really? The others are weak to middling sources, but Slate and Business Insider strengthen their case. Harassment is happening. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear - my intention wasn't to discredit the sources so much as it was a reflection on the general lack of credible sources, mostly based on previous discussion, debate and outcomes. AnyyVen (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think those two really point out any particular harassment towards supporters of the movement as much as they point out harassment towards the movement's detractors in detail.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"Consequently, harassment has also been directed in return at GamerGate supporters themselves, who at this point endure constant doxing and torment of their own members; hashtag searches makes finding harassment targets easy" is the direct statement, and some examples of statements/tweets/etc are given and inferred by the article to be negative or exemplary. It's not exactly a front-page article on the NYT but is one of the few examples I've seen of a media outlet even paying mention to it. [edit: this is from the Slate article] AnyyVen (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

What harassment has been shown to be coming from people under the name of GamerGate? Most of the stuff that is getting publicity has not been shown to come from either side.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Such a claim is so far out in left field from any of the sources that it strains all ability to assume that you are here for anything other than WP:TE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

We do not present allegations as fact without confirmation. All we have is that one threat apparently mentioned GamerGate, but the ones getting the most coverage said nothing about it. People being harassed who support GamerGate is getting coverage and does warrant mention. That this is suspected to be from opponents of GamerGate also warrants mention, though we should not treat them as fact either absent confirmation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the threats do not mention Gamergate as the impetus. There are enough sources that make the connections that we can include their claims on thsi article. I'm personally not currently convinced that we need to go "some Gamergate supporters are receiving harassment too" when they are minor aspects of the cited news articles above.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

My point is we don't treat it as fact anymore than we would treat these instances from alleged opponents as fact. That does not mean we exclude it or neglect to mention the allegation that it comes from opponents.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I updated the list. Willhesucceed (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

And my question was originally are these claims of harassment sent towards those in the "pro-Gamergate" camp worthy of mention overall, because it seems to be an afterthought in much of the writing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Ingrained compromise

@Masem: and other parties, seems someone changed 7 days back to 2 and the conversation got prematurely archived again... picking up where we left of, as I understand you view the term ingrained to differ enough from inherent so as not to contradict it, I propose we add a parenthesis directly after saying it is not inherent, and linking to Yang's article. Like so:

It concerns ingrained (but not inherent^ref) issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community

If it is notable to call an issue ingrained based on a venturebeat article then it should also be notable to say the issue is not inherent. Or alternatively we can declare neither adjective notable and just drop both and say "concerns issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community". Ranze (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see section above about a better lead where I have suggested using " pre existing" instead in the lead. --MASEM (t) 12:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

We've also had this discussion before. At the latter end I proposed a few sources to replace those we have now for "inherent". I'd rather not do that, as we really don't need to clutter 3 more sources on for every dispute, but if it can help us refocus on making the article coherent by putting this to bed I'll do it. I've now seen like 2-3 comments from experienced editors who are new to GG say that this article is either hard to follow or poorly structured. Part of that comes from fighting these piecemeal battles over a word here and a quote there and not being able to improve the article as a whole without offending 6 different constituencies. We need to either hammer this sort of stuff out and keep it in an FAQ (e.g. "this is why we use this description of the movement" or "this is how we treat certain terms") not for readers but for us, really. Or we need to dial it back and focus on editing what we have now to get the point across a little more clearly. Protonk (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The citation for "ingrained" is inadequate to allow the word to be used without quotation marks and inline attribution. It's an opinion, and not properly Wikipedia's opinion.

Can someone request a proper boxed notification of this page's protection status, date of expiration, etc? These discreet little padlocks need to be stamped out. Andyvphil (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There does not need to be any change to this matter just because you've decided to jump controversial topics.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

TotalBiscuit did an audioblog on this topic

https://soundcloud.com/totalbiscuit/weaponised-charity As far as I'm aware he hasn't posted a transcript. Halfhat (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

But what can we do with this article? Extract an opinion from it? --86.156.85.208 (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

He's relevant and a respectable opinion on the matter but this is sadly a self-published source Loganmac (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." It can be used for his attributed opinions, if he qualifies. Andyvphil (talk)

I'm unaware of anyone considering John Bain as an expert in either journalism ethics or issues of harassment on the Internet, so I don't think that applies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

He's a lawyer, so he'd get the ethics bit. And if he weren't relevant, why would Erik Kain include him alongside gaming publications EICs in a discussion on the topic? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmosgPNXmNc Willhesucceed (talk) 09:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Consider Basics on Structuring a Neutral Article

Hey guys, I tend to dabble in less formal sites than Wikipedia - smaller wikis with far less stringent rules on citing sources and with less structure in regards to how editing is done. Apologies if I violate a standard for formatting on the talk page.

However, I felt like I should weigh in just to point out that the article can fix some of its concerns with bias by adjusting the connotation and structure of the article to be more neutral. Right now, the article opens up and the first sentence says, "GamerGate is about ingrained misogyny in gaming culture". And while this is technically accurate because a lot of the controversy revolves around that debate, it's a way of opening the article that leads with the stance of one side. It's like making an article about the abortion debate and leading with a sentence that reads, "the abortion debate is a controversy concerning the death of unborn children". Again, technically true to write that, but by leading this way you make it appear as though the controversy is that kids are dying and the fight is over how to stop it. Likewise, this article makes it sound as though the gaming community is sexist and the argument is about how to deal with it.

The article then goes on to list "legitimate grievances of the Gamer Gate movement" at the very end of the article, and with no bullets within, making it appear as something of an afterthought to the article despite being at least as equally large as the fantastically detailed account of Zoe Quinn's harassment. Meanwhile, you have a section entitled "Role of misogyny and anti-feminism", and within that section you include criticism from a self-proclaimed feminist who believes gaming isn't sexist. While I understand that you're trying to make the readers informed that the commentator in that section does not agree with some Feminists, it seems a bit unfair to declare her an "anti-feminist" or include her under that header when apparently she doesn't identify as such.

Given the way you're doing this, an outside observer might be persuaded to think that the weight being added to one side of this controversy goes above and beyond the availability of reliable sourcing. Going forward, you ought to consider completely restructuring the article to have more neutral headers like "Media Response", "Twitter Activity", "Crticism", "Online Threats", and so on. That's a much more responsible approach than having headers in an abortion article that say things like "Ongoing Disputes Over Murdered Children".

All that said, I've cleaned up biased articles on smaller websites, so I know how it gets when you honestly feel that something you care about is being infringed upon. However, if you're extremely passionate about this article - or maybe if you're a very ardent feminist or Gamer Gate supporter - you should back up for a little bit and let some other people take over for a while, because you're on a side and you're being a lot more biased than you realize. YellowSandals (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources say. The reliable sources say this involves misogyny and anti-feminism. We do not say that "the gaming community is sexist," we note that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say that there are significant elements of sexism in the gaming community. These are the mainstream, predominant viewpoints on the issue and our articles are required to present these viewpoints accordingly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

From the talk page, you are recognizably one of the individuals with a very strong bias. Regardless of that or the preponderance of articles for or against your side, it's still clear that the entire article is written from the point of view of a single side of the argument. If I were you, I would consider this: if you really believe that the denigration of women is a verifiable Truth that needs to be fought against, then your stance can be strengthened by neutrality and criticism. When someone analyzes the research methodology of feminist sources, that is not an attack on feminism - that's called peer review and it's crucial aspect of productive research and science. For that reason, it's disingenuous to label a critical researcher as an "anti-feminist" just because you disagree with her. I know that many articles represent Gamer Gate as an issue of harassment and sexism, but do you feel there's any evidence that Gamer Gate supporters disagree with that perspective? Do you feel supporters of the other team are willfully cruel and insensitive, and confederated towards purposefully disreputable goals? If so, your understanding of the world and its politics is based on Saturday morning cartoons - your ideological opponents are not Cobra Command, and by treating them as such you've written a very unprofessional article that has no value. YellowSandals (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Uhh, no. You are pretty off on all counts on how Wikipedia works. It matters not what we as individuals think and it matters not what some gamergaters may wish to achieve. since "gamergate" is not a formal membership organization and there is no recognized manifesto or set of platforms, we present gamergate solely as the reliably published mainstream sources see it and present it. And I will remind you that you also need to assume good faith that other editors are working to achieve Wikipedia's principles of writing an encyclopedia and not cast aspersions about their motives on this talk page]]. If someone is not editing per the WP:5P, then you will need to take your concerns about their editing to the appropriate place that handles editor behavior, such as administrators notice board and be able to specifically identify how they are acting inappropriately with specific examples , not simply wildly unjustified assertions of "you are recognizably one of the individuals with a very strong bias.". You may wish to strike such nonsense to demonstrate your good faith. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Being quoted in a section that discusses the well-sourced role of anti-feminism in the movement does not label that person as an anti-feminist.

It doesn't matter what I think, and there aren't "teams" here. What matters is that reliable sources have said that there are a significant number of GamerGate supporters who are, as you say, "willfully cruel and insensitive, and confederated toward purposefully disreputable goals" and that even if they are a minority, they are a vocal and vicious minority, have committed vile acts of harassment and the "movement" as a whole has either been unable or unwilling to disassociate itself from them — and that the end result is to permanently poison the well of the debate and render the entire movement non-credible. Those reliable sources are amply presented here, and their conclusion is virtually unanimous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Much of bias is about little things that shape someone's views points by the subtle way things are worded, often with the same denotations but differing connotations, and proximity to other sentences that form connections. It's not all about what is explicitly stated. Halfhat (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Being quoted in a section that discusses the well-sourced role of anti-feminism in the movement does not label that person as an anti-feminist. But I repeat myself. There are over a dozen people quoted in that section, and I notice that you're not claiming that Simon Parkin, Liana Kerzner and Erik Kain are anti-feminists. You can literally read anything into anything if you'd like. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I think the biggest issue is that the sources are generally quite negative towards it so it's har for the result to be neutral. That said I think there is a lot of biased wording, and excessively emotive language I proposed so some stuff to try to make it better. But lets just say there was consensus to make the edits. I'm pretty new to editing Wikipedia so I'm not too sure. But it seems to me there are a couple of strongly anti GamerGate people here that really get in the way. We all have our opinions myself included, but these two (if you read you'll see who) really seem to be the ones opposing all the changes to do with bias, and seem not to even try to be neutral. I remember one in particular breaking into anti-GG rants on this talk page. I'm really not sure how to go forward or what excatly it should look like. I just hope some more experienced editors do, and get it done. Halfhat (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

we never strive to achieve a false "neutrality". An article meets Wikipedias WP:NPOV by matching the views of the reliably published sources and expert opinions. Since those sources are overwhelmingly "negative" towards "gamergate"; if our article is in fact "negative" towards "gamergate" ; that is a sign that we are doing our job in representing the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice strawman. What I criticised is the use of emotional language and wording. Not the pointsHalfhat (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually no, that's not 100% true either. Hypothetical: let's say a person is suspected of a violent crime, evidence is strongly against them, etc, but the trial hasn't happened. It may be the case that the press with presume "guilty until proven innocent", a natural human instinct, but if the trial has not happened, we cannot take the opinion of the press here. This is what is happening in GG to a different degree - there are morally wrong things being done, but no one person has been charged with any type of doing it, and while the press has pretty much painted that whole side as the same, we should not be doing the same. We can report this opinion of the press, but we cannot write this article on that same unestablished notion. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is asking you to build a false neutrality. What I'm saying is, the title itself states the issue is a controversy, and yet the article is written as if there barely is one despite this whole thing going on for, what, months now? I've been seeing it on forums all over the place. The stance of the Gamer Gate side is included and referenced, but it's listed at the bottom like it has the least significance to the entire article. Meanwhile, Somners provides some very objective criticism of the research methodology used to discuss the whole debate, and that's listed under the "anti-feminist" header. That's not rational, it's not objectives, and it's something you willfully chose to do. The available media sources did not force you to do it. You could structure this article with neutral headers, but you actively choose not to. Criticizing corollary data or the methods used to obtain them is not the same as being an enemy to an ideology - if Somners is a researcher, it's her damned job to question these things! It's what science and research is about! YellowSandals (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really understanding your objection here. The section is titled "Role of anti-feminism and misogyny." It is indisputable that anti-feminism and misogyny play a role in the debate, as exemplified by source after source after source. The section header does not suggest that everyone quoted in that section is "anti-feminist," any more than a section header entitled "Murder" would suggest that everyone quoted in that section is a murderer. In fact, we accurately and directly describe Ms. Sommers as an "author and scholar." We quote and present her views. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Indisputable? You are writing an article about an ongoing controversy and debate. Somners is a researcher who made a video debating whether or not misogyny is playing a role, questioning some of the data being used to draw that conclusion. And you put her under the "anti-feminist" header even though she describes herself as a Feminist. Consider that - if questioning the research or postulates of Feminism automatically makes you an enemy of the ideology, how could anyone ever dispute? Why would people who blindly believe in the ideology question it? By definition you've created an absolute "us Vs them" trap. Your logic is circular and you've written an article on the assumption that the feminist side of the debate is beyond dispute. That's called bias, North. You're biased. I understand your position and you should hold to your convictions, but if you can't understand the debate then you shouldn't be assisting the article about the debate. I'm not asking for you to include more info in support of anyone - I just want to see more neutral headers that don't lump critics under the "misogynists and anti-feminists" section, because Wikipedia can't make misrepresent still-living people that way. YellowSandals (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It is indisputable that misogyny and anti-feminism are a significant part of the GamerGate controversy; see all the reliable sources quoted here. One person claiming that it doesn't play a role does not somehow magically mean it's not — frankly, if she claims that misogyny and anti-feminism aren't involved in GamerGate, she's espousing a fringe theory far outside the mainstream of thought. Our section title accurately depicts the fact that the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources is that misogyny and anti-feminism play a role.

Again, your claim that titling a section about the issues it discusses somehow labels the people quoted in the section has no support in Wikipedia policy or common sense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

While I cannot agree with all you've said, Yellow, I've been trying to point this type of issue out for some time - that the anti-GG quoting in this article is assuming that they (antiGGers) are "right" and to preach that side. I know we're never going to have an article that will paint the proGG side in a light that makes them look saintly, but we shouldn't be assuming the antiGG side is impeccable as well, just because that's the side the mainsteam press has taken. We can address the common points the mainstream press has given, but we need to write this much more clinically. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, Christina Hoff Sommers is known for her opinions that are critical of modern third wave feminism (where many people consider her anti-feminist rather than her self-defined equity feminist). People were so insistent that we label her on this page as a registered democrat with libertarian leanings because the American Enterprise Institute is a conservative think tank because of her heavily conservative writings and leanings despite what she has said she is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You can't just defend a bias by saying it's common sense, North. The point is, there's no reason to include a "Misogyny and Anti-Feminism" header when a "Criticisms" or "Media Analysis" header would be more expansive, more convenient, and wouldn't paint the subject material beneath in a strictly negative light. There's definitely a lot more media coverage depicting Gamer Gate as a sexist movement, but I think it's because of the nature of the issue. Gamer Gate itself is, when it is led, pretty factional. It's been continually springing up in new places, and each forum, Youtube following, or game dev has a unique understanding and stance on the issue. The Feminist side, however, has been pretty unified because the things they're saying follow a common and established doctrine. It's a disorganized group in conflict with a more organized group, and consequently, the media can only present the anti-GG side with any certainty. Virtually everything in support of Gamer Gate has been informal. Things like blogs, Youtube channels, forums, and other material that aren't suited for Wikipedia.

In spite of that, though, it's important to structure the article in the assumption that maybe more info will come to light as the debate continues. A header titled "Role of Misogyny and Anti-Feminism" is kind of useless and it's blatantly biased. If a more consistent leader were to emerge from Gamer Gate, you could provide no additional information beneath that header, and as it is, all it's being used for is to indirectly accuse people of being anti-feminists for having this or that opinion. However, with a header like "Media Response" or "Criticism", you could add data representing any aspect of the subject. Neutral headers are better for a lot of practical reasons, and this article will never be unbiased as long is it's trying to reconcile a section that assumes one side or aspect of the argument is indisputably correct. YellowSandals (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

We're never going to structure an article around what could happen in the future, by Wikipedia policy. We're structuring the article around how reliable sources characterize the movement now and in the past, which is all we can do. If that changes, then we change the article. Woodroar (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to use Wikipedia to predict the future. I'm asking you to use unbiased headers that are more functional. Look, Gamer Gate supporters are in this thing for a variety of reasons, right? Zoe touched off a number of nerves that have been on people's minds lately. She used the DMCA to shut down discussion - it would be nice if Wikipedia could find an article that explained how she did that and if it was legal. She was accused of trading sex for positive reviews when people are already mad at gaming media for giving AAA games reviews for money. She made her battle into a Feminist issue while there was already controversy surrounding Anita Sarkeesian. I honestly don't think a disorganized mob of people could stay mad for this long because they're afraid of losing their masculinity or something, and among those pro-GG who have a problem with Feminism, even they don't think of themselves as misogynists.

Arbitrary break 1

So I have a real problem when the entire article is structured as though none of these issues exist, and the entire debate is about "ingrained misogyny" and how to deal with it. As though GG supporters were just dealing with some Freudian, subconscious problem they refuse to admit. For goodness sake, you have a section talking about things that the Gamer Gate movement has actually done and has explained legitimate grievances about. WHY is that at the bottom? WHY do you have a header labelled from the perspective of Feminists above that, and that header is merely being used to accuse pro-GG critics of being anti-feminist?

Is there really NOTHING? Of all the grievances being expressed by the various factions of the Gamer Gate movement, Wikipedia can find NOTHING neutral that discusses the controversies involved with this thing, and the article needs to be structured to highlight that fact as hard as it can? Come on - people are coming to this page and they know they're not getting a full story. I see them griping about it on forums. Nobody is being fooled here. The article is just bad and needs to be fixed. YellowSandals (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No, really, we can't, not without abandoning our sourcing policies (per WP:RS and WP:FRINGE). For example, we know that a DCMA was used to close out one discussion - that's given - but to claim it was Quinn? That's a theory without backing and that no RS has reported. Much of what I know proGGs would like to see in this (reading on the various threads at the usual places), we simply cannot support because they are the quintessential definition of fringe theories, irregardless how much "proof" they think they have on that. We're not here to be a unbias journalistic report on this, we're here to summarize reliable sources, and they are not giving us anything we can use to give more claims to the proGG side that I know they'd like us to see. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, that's fair. I've tried looking for articles myself, but they all keep repeating the same thing and none are talking about the things Gamer Gate seems to hold grievances over. Which I think is really only promoting paranoia. Still, though, I maintain the article could stand to be restructured so that it shows it's representing criticism and opinions, because so far that's all that's really coming out about this whole controversy. There are major news sources discussing it, but it's yellow journalism - they're reporting opinions, but there haven't been many, if any, facts. It's just not practical to have a structure discussing the role "misogyny and anti-feminism" play in a controversy when everyone's opinion of what misogyny and anti-feminism is can vary so much. YellowSandals (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Going back to the beginning, YellowSandals... 1. Zoe Quinn's boyfriend never wrote a review of her game, and that is settled, proven fact. The allegation at the very base of GamerGate was a false one and this tainted the movement from the start. 2. Much of the frenzy over Zoe Quinn was slut-shaming personal attacks, right down to the third-grade-level sex jokes about "Five Guys." It might have made for some lulz on 4chan, but it's hardly the way to demonstrate that your movement is seriously interested in journalism ethics. 3. Zoe Quinn is not an "AAA publisher" — she gave her game away for free on the Internet. This leads to pointed questions about the actual motivations of the movement, given the multiplicity of available targets in the industry that are much higher-profile and have done things actually clearly unethical — like buy positive coverage through advertorials. 4. Even if there *was* a journalism ethics issue involved, the person to target would have been Nathan Grayson — the actual journalist who would have done something unethical. Instead, the movement focused its attention and/or harassment on Quinn and her defenders. 5. Throughout, the discussions and hashtag were riddled with glaring, blatant, obvious and unrepentant misogyny and sexism. The use of the codephrase "SJW" reduced the movement's opponents to caricatures. Supporters demanded that, in effect, game journalists stop writing about issues of gender, race, class, culture and politics in video games. All of those factors, and others, contributed to a perception (fair or not) that the movement's claim of "journalism ethics" was little more than a pretense for attacks on women in the industry and a retrograde attempt to stop the increasingly-diverse nature of discussion and debate in video game culture.

Now I know what you're going to say, and it's exactly what every good-faith GamerGate supporter says — "That's not me, I don't support it." Unfortunately, that misses the point. The "movement," such as it is, is organized around nothing more than a hashtag. The barrier to entry to the "movement" is nothing more than the ability to type that hashtag. Anyone who claims to be a part of GamerGate by using the hashtag effectively is a part of GamerGate, whether anyone likes it or not, and the movement will end up judged by the worst people using it. Long ago, the hashtag was rendered fruit of a poisonous tree, and the only way to move forward and beyond what GamerGate is popularly associated with is to abandon it entirely, come up with something else, develop an organization and create coherent goals.

This is not my personal opinion of the issue; this is what reliable mainstream sources have said. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't cast stones from a glass house, North. Lest you be judged by the deeds of the worst Feminists. I think your intense personal stake in the controversy is a major conflict of interest here. YellowSandals (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I stake no claim to any part in any movement and it's difficult not to notice that you declined to actually address what reliable sources have said about the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to claim no stake when the bulk of your previous response appear to be subjective qualifications. To play devil's advocate (no relation), what is notable is the fact that Quinn's game was given glowing reviews across the board, despite the comparatively poor ratings it's received from its public (non-journalistic) audience at large, a la Metacritic for instance. Even then, these results were contested by various editors as to their notability and validity for inclusion in the article, despite their presence on the articles of other video games, and prior to a reliable source for the claim that trolls were responsible (despite the fact that many giving negative reviews also had several to hundreds of other reviews credited to their accounts, and that many sarcastic reviews ironically gave positive ratings). Regarding "the person to target," I don't know how to and therefore won't address that supposition as that's a bad road to travel down, that is, whom the appropriate "target" is. Indeed if this claim is made by secondary sources, perhaps a more effective method of framing would be, for example, "Sources have stated that Grayson would have been the target if journalistic integrity was an issue." You also mention that the hashtag was "riddled with glaring, blatant, obvious and unrepentant misogyny and sexism" - I fully agree, the issue is that that hashtag has been utilized by both supporters and detractors, and in the spirit of avoiding unintentional bias, that point should be made more clear, secondary sources permitting. I would argue that SJW is far less of an obvious caricature, or at the very least one on par, as that of the virginal, overweight adult white male with no social skills that has so often been used, especially in the eyes of readers of the mainstream media versus gaming journalism. Finally, I would avoid implying the associations of others, especially for instance, through use of such a heavy blanket statement of "Anyone who claims to be a part of GamerGate by using the hashtag effectively is a part of GamerGate," as that also includes Quinn, Sarkeesian, and Wu themselves, as they have used that hashtag, or at least, this is my interpretation of what you said. Remember: verifiable, not true. We're all working towards the same goal: a cohesive and accurate representation as best can be reported from reliably sourced facts. AnyyVen (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Your personal opinions no matter how dear and clear they are to your are meaningless without reliably published sources to support them. please read the policies WP:OR / WP:V / WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. We are done until you start backing your position with appropriate sources. and we are certainly done with you impugning other editors. WP:NPA / WP:AGF -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if I seem untoward. However, I believe nothing I have stated is outside of the facts already published with citations on Wikipedia itself let alone in recognized secondary sources. I assure you I have read the policies you've offered; however, I will consult them again. Likely, any failings I've had to adhere to them are due to my own lack of experience in their usage. I would request for my own education if you would be able to assist me by showing me which policies apply to which statements I've made, or even more valuable, how, as well. Furthermore, I'm unclear as to whom "we" refers to? Finally, I would also offer that in light of the suggestion that I'm attempting to "impugn" anyone, would also like to refer you to WP:AGF as well as WP:BITE. From my view, I saw a statement with no citations, along with some elements that do not appear to be factual/are opinion. I was attempting to provide contrast (in positions, to better facilitate consensus) as there is, clearly, dispute as to neutrality in this topic. AnyyVen (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What I'm also taking away is this seems to be confusion between arguing that Gamergate as a movement is not misogynistic versus misogyny being an issue in the debate. These are wholly different: for instance, arguing if someone is biased immediately requires that bias is a concern, whether or not they actually are. AnyyVen (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the confusion of any arguments may be, gamergate is misogynistic and there has long been an issue of misogyny in the gamer community and we have sources identifying both and identifying the former as springing from the later. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't agree with the argument "gamergate is misogynistic" because it doesn't completely make sense. I can agree with the statements that "some participants in the gamergate controversy are misogynistic" or "have done misogynistic things," which is what many sources are very particular about stating, but this includes participants from both the proGG and antiGG sides (which apparently do not exist), and also says nothing about the harassment endured by non-female persons and entities. AnyyVen (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the issues involved in this debate is whether or not Gamer Gate is sexist. Sexism is an issue, and you have opinion sources stating the opinion that Gamer Gate is sexist. For that matter, do you and I define "misogyny" the same way? What about you and the Wiki's readers. If it's the dominant opinion then you represent it, but it's still an opinion and needs to be held as one. YellowSandals (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be the main issue on this page, TROPD you are stating an OPINION as a fact. Yes there have been misogynistic actions by a minority BUT you are brushing a whole movement as sexist because of that. (you will bring up sources but they re stating a writers opinion) Would you call all muslims misogynistic, violent criminals just because of the actions of ISIS? Retartist (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Your personal opinions are noted and noted as being contrary to multiple reliably published sources [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] and therefore a a minority opinion AT BEST and so deserving of minimal or no coverage AT BEST and certainly not restructuring the article to minimize the fact of the misogyny and sexism. And having been addressed MULTIPLE times before [12] and so your continued lack of clue is now heading towards the purely disruptive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

First: OR does not apply in this case as i am not either editing the article or making a specific suggestion; i am refuting a point of yours. Secondly the RS's are copying the opinion of a minority of people directly involved (sure there are a lot of sources supporting your POV but the accusation that a whole movement is misogynistic based on the actions of a few is as ridiculous as saying that islam advocates violence based on isis). Thirdly BLAPS: THE ACCUSATION THAT MISOGYNY IS THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND EVERY GAMER IS AN OPINION BASED ON THE ACTIONS OF A FEW. Therefore we should treat it as an opinion not a fact, A 'SCHOLAR' has refuted that claim. Fourthly: STICK applies to you as well. FINALLY: TE, At best i violate points 2.6 and 2.13. You however violate 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.13 2.14. And see WP:AOTE because you do this to anyone who disagrees with your view. Retartist (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Literally no one is arguing "that misogyny is the driving force behind every gamer." So why are you fighting strawmen? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

When i hear that gamergate is misogynistic i assume that "everyone who supports gamergate is misogynistic" is what is meant Retartist (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's a different question — not "every gamer" is part of GamerGate, not by a longshot. But no, that statement means what it says — "the movement as a whole is identified as misogynistic." #GamerGate is an identity movement, and when a person puts on a badge that says "#GamerGate," it doesn't necessarily mean they personally are misogynistic — but they are identifying as part of a movement that is misogynistic. Which taints everything they might say under that hashtag, and has permanently poisoned the well of this debate. Which is why a huge number of reliable sources have repeatedly suggested that those interested in actual sane discussions of journalistic ethics abandon the hashtag and come up with something different.

The claim that "not everyone in #GamerGate supports misogyny so the movement isn't misogynistic" fails as a matter of logic — it's effectively a version of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Which is the fatal weakness of any "movement" of largely-anonymous people with no leadership, no organization, no unified goals and no ability to gatekeep who is and who isn't part of it.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for clarifying this. Question however: as for the no true Scotsman argument, doesn't that work the other way as well? For instance there are some articles stating the whole movement is misogynistic whereas other articles specify that "some" or a "vocal minority" are responsible. At risk of seeming dense, how does one especially in terms of a wikipedia article counterbalance this? via WP:DUE? AnyyVen (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to link this, a reddit post by a Boston Globe writer that previously wrote on GG about a month ago, and has tried to dig into the proGG side and found nothing to report on, which explains why unless the proGG tactics change, we are not going to get the sourcing that we need to give the proGG a fair shake. [13]; not a gamer, this is the thoughts of a member of the press trying to find a story to report on. And this is probably similar to what other mainstream sources are struggling with. It fully rationalizes why while there are ways to fix parts of this article, the narrative isn't going to change. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have another concern regarding the inclusion of "misogyny and anti-feminism" as it's own header. Aside from the fact that it's only the opinion of certain parties that gamers or Gamer Gate are misogynists, is there any actual proof that gaming in general is misogynistic? The insistence that Somners is an anti-Feminist because she disputes this idea kind of demonstrates that peer review for this assertion is not especially welcome. You look at something like gravity, and there are critics on the theories of gravity, but they aren't labelled as anti-gravity scientists. In other words, the assertion that gamers are misogynistic appears to be stemming from an ideology - if the ideology is using very weak research methodology and refuses peer review, then by Wikipedia's definition, it's fringe because it's pseudoscience. Am I understanding correctly?

Arbitrary break 2

There are a lot of reporters who feel that Gamer Gate is sexist, so that opinion isn't fringe. The article should be free to mention a prevailing opinion as it is, represented as an opinion. But to say that "misogyny" plays a primary role in everyone's actions? There's no hard proof of that. Somners argues it's false specifically because the data being used to support that argument is weak. There are things that are concrete and can be said about Gamer Gate, but the notion that the industry is inherently sexist is an opinion. To assert that Gamer Gate is sexist beyond the scope of opinion, you'd need articles actually gathering data on the stances of people within the movement. Yes? Until then, the Wiki should say, "Time and numerous other publications decried Gamer Gate as a sexist movement", as opposed to using wording and structure that implies the sexism is somehow a scientifically foregone conclusion.

I understand the challenge of writing this article, but the "neutrality" tag is on this article for a reason, and if the article can't even be moved towards more neutral wording and structure then I'm not sure what else can be done for it. YellowSandals (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Your insistence on "proof" is misguided. As explained above, Wikipedia publishes what reliable sources say about a topic. It is not our job to second-guess the conclusions of reliable sources.

Similarly, you are perhaps misreading the article. Nowhere does this article make the claim that "gaming in general is misogynistic." Instead, this article notes, as have a wide array of reliable sources, that there are "ingrained issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community" (and perhaps this should be expanded to say "industry" as well.) This phrase does not state, imply or even suggest that everyone in gaming is misogynistic. This statement is supported by a wide array of reliable sources; whether they have "proof" or not is immaterial. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If people are misreading it, it's not clear enough. Willhesucceed (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Or they're willfully choosing to read what they want into words that don't actually say what they want. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, they're reading exactly what the sentence says. The problem is, there's no unified definition of "misogyny". You've linked to the slut-shaming article previously, but notice the quote, "Slut shaming is defined by many...". Right there, you're seeing the article worded to allow for the fact that there's more than a single perspective on what that phrase means. Further, that article goes on to maintain neutrality with phrasing such as "accepted codes of sexual conduct", which is broad, accurate, and sensible, because the definition of "accepted codes of conduct" can vary wildly by context and community. The article does not say, "slut shaming is about ingrained misogyny" as this article does for Gamer Gate. Look at the slut-shaming article - seriously look at it. The headers are neutral and practical. "Overview", "In Literature", "In the Media", "Attempts to Stop the Practice". Nowhere in that article are headers like "Role of Misogyny" being used, because "misogyny" is a charged word with no clear definition and its use is not informative. Using a header like "Role of Misogyny and Anti-Feminism" and opening the article by saying "This debate is about ingrained misogyny" can not only be interpreted differently by a variety of readers, but it's also rather pejorative. YellowSandals (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The aspects of misogyny, sexism, and anti-feminism have been brought up by pretty much everyone out there other than the people Gamergate defines as "not biased" which his shorthand for "totally biased in our favor". Gamergate has been defined by these words consistently but you are still all going #NotAllGamergaters when being confronted with this fact.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

And there has been a consistently prevailing opinion that Hitler was evil, but yet his article describes him as "an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party" because this is a factual assessment. You can't quantify evil and the perception of what evil is does vary by individual. Just like the word "evil", the word "misogyny" could mean numerous things depending on the perspective of the individual reader, and "misogyny" is not a word with anything but a negative connotation. When these sources call Gamer Gate "misogynistic", is there any evidence that they've agreed upon a definition for misogyny? I don't think so - and if they have, then Wikipedia should probably document what that agreed definition is so that the readers know. Otherwise, the article may as well open by saying "Gamer Gate is a controversy concerning ingrained evil within the industry". These words are just pejorative and defined by opinion. It would be better to say that Gamer Gate is a controversy concerned with gender politics, because that's broader, neutral, and conveys that mileage varies within the debate. YellowSandals (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I can't continue a conversation where the concept of "Hitler was not evil" is brought up as a means to say "Gamergate is not misogynistic".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ryulong that the chosen article and issue to draw parallels with here may be a poor one. However, the Hitler article does indeed make mention that many historians and other parties consider the Nazi regime as well as Hitler himself to be evil. However, while I'm no expert, 'evil' is a far more broadly defined category that is also based upon moral implications and therefore far more subjective. Misogyny on the other hand has a much more concise definition, including mandated by law and policy, giving precedence. Additionally, I'm sure if more professional works defining Hitler as evil existed, especially as in the proportions present for Gamergate, it would be more heavily noted on that article per WP:DUE. More pertinent though is that considering that I think I can safely say the bulk of publications about Gamergate include pronounced mention of misogyny by name and harassment specifically directed at women due to their gender as well as sexism, and that the article still does use terms including "allegations," "argue" and the like, it's not out of line. The fact is, misogyny, its presence and role in this controversy, and its relationship to the status of Gamergate as a movement or some of its membership/participants, is the most prominent feature and theme present in the media. AnyyVen (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, would you agree that some people think misogyny is a form of evil? Look, I'm sorry to bring up Hitler because I know it's a joke doing so on the internet, but everyone knows who he is, which is why he's so culturally relevant. The important question, Ryūlóng, is: what is the definition of misogyny being used in these debates? Because the definition varies. Everybody knows what gender politics is, but one person's misogyny may be another person's traditional values. "Misogynistic" is not any more an objective adjective than "evil", and it would be in poor taste to open a Wikipedia article by describing something as "concerned with ingrained, ongoing evil". YellowSandals (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if you're asking Ryulong in specific. I think it's spurious to assert one way or the other if "some people" think misogyny is a "form of evil," because of the ill definitions and broad speculation as to "some people" and what exactly evil is, let alone a form of it. I'm gathering what you may be trying to get at is that by asserting an entity is misogynistic, it is, or will lead to the belief it is also/therefore "evil?" This is all extremely subjective. The issue here is that it isn't Wikipedia proposing that Gamergate is or is not misogynist, but rather reporting what secondary sources are arguing or alleging it is, so the argument is moot. On a more personal note, the topics they're relating in regards to the alleged misogyny - rape threats, death threats, bomb threats [at least] primarily against women - can hardly be construed as mistaking someone's "traditional values." AnyyVen (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean, consider this as a revision. "It concerns gender politics in the gaming community and journalistic ethics in the online gaming press - particularly conflicts of interest between video game journalists and developers. The movement itself has been widely criticized as misogynistic due to ongoing hostility towards female developers and game critics."

This way your opening statement is factual, not using charged language, but it still includes the prevailing opinion expressed by the available sources. In this way, Wikipedia is not siding with the prevailing opinion by stating Gamer Gate is misogynistic, but simply stating that a core issue is gender politics, particularly criticisms regarding misogyny. It still conveys the exact same information, but without the bias. YellowSandals (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that most sources don't allege the issue is gender politics, they allege it is misogyny, literally, by name, and often directly in the headline. It would be a misrepresentation to state otherwise, and an unwarranted interpretation on the article's part to infer that gender politics and misogyny are the same thing. I can't even find mention of "gender politics" on the misogyny page, so I do not think it is a safe assumption to equate the two. AnyyVen (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. I feel like this is going nowhere. The identity politics article describes identity politics as politics shaped by culture or gender and so on. I feel like most articles have been explicitly referring to gamer culture and the identity politics of being a gamer. The politics of being a female gamer. I can't swallow this. You can't be telling me that it's not identity politics just because the prevailing opinion is that Gamer Gate is "misogynistic". If the reporting on this is really so ridiculously one-sided that it shanghais Wikipedia into totally lacking neutrality, then delete the article. You can fix the wording by making the change I propose, even by using the term "identity politics" instead of "gender politics". It's what the debate is about! The sources are actively discussing Gamer Gate as an issue of identity politics. YellowSandals (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are founded on the principle of reliable secondary sources. This effectively restricts the material that can be used as citations to those that, by consensus, will generally be the most reputable and accurate, with general hallmarks of professional peer review and an assumed degree of expertise. Even if the reporting is one-sided, Wikipedia cannot conduct original research to counter the mainstream opinion. Therefore, to write the article in such a way as to cast doubt on or interpret the mainstream opinion without reliable sources is an implication of better certitude than those sources. I understand that the definition of the controversy may differ for some individuals, especially those in support of it, but unfortunately, at least at this time, that is not what the public at large believes according to mainstream sources. That's a public relations issue. As far as deleting the article, that would be biased by omission in the sense it is ignoring that by and large, mainstream sources are reporting that Gamergate has issues of misogyny. This argument is problematic in the sense that your suggestion is that if the article isn't "fixed" with your suggestions, the alternative is to delete it, which is rather all-or-nothing. Instead, I suggest finding these sources that state the issue is identity politics (and do so without interpretation), see the weighting this argument is given in respect to the accusations and implications of misogyny, and offer an introduction reflecting these weightings. AnyyVen (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems that you're arguing that Wikipedia has to choose a side because the more reliable sources chose a side. Gamer Gate can't be identity politics because the press is saying it's "misogynistic", so therefore Wikipedia must call Gamer Gate "misogynistic". Open and shut case. No politics here. YellowSandals (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia cannot present novel material. Unless reliable sources begin referring to the subject as "identity politics", the English Wikipedia cannot present it as such. The English Wikipedia presents the Gamergate controversy as one about misogyny and sexism in gamer culture, and the movement's desire for greater ethics in journalism, which is seen as a thinly veiled cover for the inherent misogyny that spawned it and the desire to remove cultural criticism and culturally relevant topics from video games.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Which reliable sources are saying that Gamer Gate has nothing to do with the gamer identity. They're all saying it's about the gamer identity and culture. The gamer identity is the core of the controversy. You - you're just conveniently ignoring anything you don't like so that the article has to stay biased. YellowSandals (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I was mistaken in omitting the concept of the expanded inclusivity of who is a gamer that those in Gamergate also want to avoid, which I'm assuming is the "Gamer is dead" articles that everyone's panties are in a twist over. But this does not mean I am biased. Remember to always assume good faith.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

YellowSandals, you were the first to suggest that sources are referring to "identity politics," so unfortunately the burden of proof lies on you to affirm this through sources deemed reliable. If this is indeed as widespread as the claims on misogyny, it should be trivial. Wikipedia is as much at the mercy of the media regarding who, what or why Gamergate is as it is at the mercy of the mainstream opinion on whether the earth is round, or whether bigfoot is a transdimensional alien being. It is not Wikipedia's place to affirm what the truth is nor to interpret the works of others. If most reliable sources state that Gamergate is awash in misogyny, how can Wikipedia reasonably argue otherwise without conducting original research? This isn't case closed, it's a matter of asking you to provide evidence for your case. AnyyVen (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

A lot of articles are discussing the issue as one of shifting demographics and the way it's impacting the gaming culture. One reference being used discusses this. "A new study from the Entertainment Software Association found that adult women are the largest demographic of gamers. As women begin to play a bigger role in the gaming community, many are calling #GamerGate a silencing tactic."

Arbitrary break 3

That's just about the demographic shift, but these articles are discussing who is a gamer and how the handling of these demographics is a core of the issue. Somner's criticism concerns how the data is being used, stating that women are gaming now but gravitate towards separate genres. Are we required to find an article that explicitly uses the phrase "identity politics" to the exact letter? I mean, look, this is already in the Wiki article: "Other topics of debate have included perceived changes or threats to the "gamer" identity as a result of the ongoing maturation and diversification of the gaming industry."

How can the wiki say that the debates involve the gamer identity, but then go on to say that Gamer Gate has nothing to do with the gamer identity or the politics thereof? YellowSandals (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

How many articles state gamergate is misogynistic, demonstrates misogyny, is affiliated with it or emulates it? How many bring up the topic of the gamer identity? This is the basis of due weighting. If 99 articles say A, it's not reasonable to present 1 and say it's actually B. Depending on how much mention a topic gets determines if it gets a few words, a sentence, a paragraph, an entire section, and therefore reasonably also affiliated with the inherent definition. I don't see where it goes on to say it has nothing to do with the gamer identity; what I do see is that it has stated, somewhere in its body, that this issue has been brought up or debated. If it has more widescale coverage than what is being suggested in the article, please provide this documentation to support your position, as I'm sure support for the definition of misogyny will be provided if it hasn't already. As far as literally stating the term "gamer identity," realize that you're arguing against the use of the term misogyny, despite the fact that exact term appears in nearly every article on the topic.

Additionally, the current introduction says "concerns ingrained issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community." I realize this is outdated and other proposed changes have been given. What I wish to draw attention to is that it is stated concerns ingrained issues in the community, not that Gamergate is a misogynistic movement, nor that gamers are misogynists. For all that can be taken from this introduction (and even what I thought when first reading it), Gamergate could be a reaction to and/or movement against this issues. The exact relationship between the supporters of Gamergate and accusations of misogyny is defined and made clear throughout the narrative provided by the article rather than by the introduction.

Rest assured I'm not trying to tell you off nor dissuade you. Rather, I'm saying that you very likely going to need all your ducks in a row to affect a change like that. AnyyVen (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I would also encourage YellowSandals or others to read our articles on varieties of criticism and possibly some specific forms of criticism, such as art criticism or literary criticism. These fields do have their scholars and journals (many of them even peer-reviewed) and theories, but they're not sciences in the sense that you're using it. Until supercomputers learn aesthetics and semiotics and can perform not only word counts but concept counts of millions of works of art, criticism in general will lack the methodological rigor to satisfy everyone. Until then, we have people trained to read or watch or play and comment on what they've experienced: critics. Our policies on fringe theories and pseudoscience mostly apply to actual sciences—like "alternative" gravity theorists, as you said—but they do also apply in situations where people question the official narrative, such as with moon landing conspiracy theories. The "official narrative", of course, comes from reliable sources, and that includes scholarship and news organizations. Woodroar (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The evidence for this is clearly a lot weaker than the moon landing. The moon landing has samples, photos, and experiments can easily be done today to show mirrors have been placed on the moon. How is the evidence for the official naritive nearly this strong on GamerGate? Halfhat (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the overwhelming majority of reliable sources portray the GamerGate movement in a certain way. For Wikipedia's purposes, that is the reality we present. Woodroar (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

So Wikipedia will present gamergate as a completely negative movement based on main-stream media portrayal? There is nothing truth-like in that whatsoever. If Wikipedia had any scruples they would go to primary sources(Twitter) and do the proper research on the thing and not cheap out by saying that the New York Times is an unbiased source of what GamerGate is.

User:SmoledMan 20:23, 21 October 2014(UTC)

Wikipedia's articles are based on content that can be verified in reliable sources and not original research into matters.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding to the FAQ

I've seen this question asked a lot and so I think that we should add it to the FAQ so we can head off any complaints by referring them to the FAQ. Question: "Why aren't we adding any other allegations from her ex-boyfriend?" Answer: "They are either irrelevant or a violation of WP:BLP since it is a defamatory allegation from a poor source i.e. a self-published blog."

--86.156.85.208 (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I presume it's not mentioned in the FAQ as it would be an extension of that BLP violation by effectively giving a BLP violation an official status. Or something. Possibly. The final two FAQ answers cover it in any case. Koncorde (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that any new editors coming here pay any attention to the FAQ anyway? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't get this point. I mean you don't have to say the allegations are tre or what they are. Just say there were other allegations. While the blogpost isn't a good source for the truth we can use the blogpost to see what the blogpost said. Halfhat (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we can't and won't. It is not an acceptable source or external link here, per policy. We do not include material from self-published sources which is defamatory or otherwise-negative toward a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we work on restructuring this article

Okay there's been a lot of focus on neutrality in the talk, and that's not a bad thing, but I think other stuff needs addressed. This article is quite poorly structured, and I think it could be written in a much more logical and aesthetically pleasing manner. The article is a mess. For example in the section that's supposed to be about the legitimacy of the concerns it discusses sites changing their policies. Now this is linked, but I think it'd be better if it was in a section documenting the response, talking about other things like the backlash and the Gaurdian's article accusing the media of bias. Halfhat (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking about a good way to restructure this article for a while, but wading through the infodump here is really time consuming to do alone. I think part of it is that a lot of the sections are fleshed out using quotes from what seem to be opinion pieces. I feel like the best thing to do would be to compile 20 or so of the most recent mainstream reliable sources (not opinion pieces) and restructure the article based on them. Once there's a really basic rundown of what happened then we can reintroduce a handful of opinion pieces. What do you think? My biggest concern is the overly long background section. I think it can be significantly shortened or even removed, since a lot of its content could be reincorporated into more defined sections later in the article without losing much context, if any. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're willing to, I think this sounds good. We can keep the current one up until we have a decent draft article that gets census. But yeah we should be careful about using heavily opinionated sources when discussing the facts Halfhat (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If you do restructure, can I suggest describing Gamer Gate as a controversy concerning identity politics? Rather than the more biased approach of just point-blank accusing the movement of misogyny. For example, "The Gamer Gate controversy concerns identity politics in the gaming community and journalistic ethics in the online gaming press - particularly conflicts of interest between video game journalists and developers. The movement itself has been widely criticized as misogynistic due to ongoing hostility towards female developers and game critics."

Something along those lines. I recommended this in the above thread, but it's become a very long debate and I didn't want it to be buried. I think the wording I've used is a good, non-biased introduction that still accurately acknowledges the prevailing criticism against Gamer Gate. Statements like this make it clear that these perspectives are held by individuals involved in the controversy rather than by Wikipedia itself. YellowSandals (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that is not how reliable sources weight the issue; it's the ideal statement of the more rational side of proGG but no mainstream source presents it as such. This is why I've suggested calling it a culture war between devs, journalists, and gamers, that involve several issues, which is accurate but broad enough to not paint any side "wrong" for this. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying it's a cultural conflict works well too. YellowSandals (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

But we can just focus on the logical way to organise it, before we then work on the content, then the wording, then the aesthetics. Halfhat (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, from what I've seen, you're a pretty solid judge on the reliability of sources. I'm planning on going through the references and the previous posts here (I think there's one about switching out some articles for more reliable/thorough ones?) but I was wondering if you had any non-opinion piece sources that you considered particularly reliable. It might be helpful to have a handful of quality sources to help us determine how the article should be structured. I think if we can get away from structuring it around opinion pieces it would be easier to show that it is, in fact, what the reliable sources are saying and not just a collection of feelings on the controversy. Kaciemonster (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The best articles to use for sourcing are the ones that are from national newspapers or news sources - so New York Times, LA Times, BBC, Washington Post, etc. The bulk of these are not video game or even tech-heavy sources, so they are breaking down the story for any reader, and are the least biased in the matter. Which ones, see most of these from these places in the article, but several more have been IDd in recent days. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Local news

If only all of our sources were as reasoned and informed as this one. Willhesucceed (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Its decent, but very short and not very in depth. The real question is how reliable it is. I don't have a clue. Halfhat (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's this information:

Quotation:46/47 Robb Street, Lacytown, Georgetown, Guyana | Published by Guyana Publications Inc.

Here's a statement by Guyana Publications. They've been operating since 1997.

They're listed in the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce & Industry

This is evidence there's an editorial team.

You can click on a random newspaper here to check it out.

Mostly I wanted to include it here as an example of an article that is considered and divorced from extremity. There's no reason we can't strive to put together something at least as good as this. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It isn't good; it shows a superficial and tenuous understanding of the topic, which is about what one would expect from a small-town OpEd writer. Tarc (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That's rather harsh. The article seems to concede points to both sides of the debate and acknowledges that there's a lot of rumor-milling going on. This writer also points out the lack of clear unity within Gamer Gate, which really is an important aspect of the controversy, as it appears to be the reason this article is having such a hard time writing anything about what Gamer Gate supporters are attempting to do. If this article could even establish that much for the readers, I think a lot of people would be happier. YellowSandals (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that local sources, if they are the only group reporting on that side of the issue when the other side is fully documented by national/international sources, means that side of the issue falls within WP:FRINGE. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

IWell there was also the Guardian article. Halfhat (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Halfhat, would you add that article below to Media criticism? Willhesucceed (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of the press

RealClearPolitics

Vice

Assange criticised the media. See below.

I stumbled onto, of all things, two conservative US sites actually covering Gamergate. I'm surprised. Free Beacon and Townhall

Then there are the other sources: BBC Business Matters 1 and 2, Forbes (pointed to by Washington Post), TechCrunch, Slate, Reason, Spiked, Pocketgamer.biz, Ryan Smith, Cinemablend (another article I'm not going to go looking for, but it exists), Spectator, Metaleater.com, HuffPost Live, MediaBistro

Willhesucceed (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, you're digging up old dirt, when the rest of us have moved on to newer sandboxes. many of those links are 4-6 weeks old, and since then, reliable sources have moved away from the faux ethics concern and into the harassment and the more recent terror threat at Utah St, for example. "The media is biased!" is a fading trope. Tarc (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what age has to do with it. Sure, other things will be given more weight now, but this does deserve some sort of mention. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think you understand at all. It is similar to the "journalists collude via mailing list!" that was debunked a ways back. We could go find many of these same sources that screamed about that topic when the "story" broke, thinking they found their silver bullet to take down the "social justice warriors". Those initial articles are still out there, but they are obsolete and look rather silly in the wake of the the debunking. Sources form early/mid-September that carp about it just being a pile of biased media fluffing up the harassment angle look pretty silly when you read the October sources about terror threats. Tarc (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree this is "old dirt". This is identifying a valid criticism (but not a point of the proGG ethics, necessarily) that gaming media have, like other entertainment sources, an urge to review and cover art-house type works over mainstream works, and as such this is marginalizing the coverage of the core AAA games in favor of these. Neither article asserts this is corruption of journalism in the manner proGG have claimed, but it is a valid point of why the proGG side is critical of how indie games seem to have much coverage nowadays. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what? "Core AAA" games get reviewed on every gamer website major and minor, along with having millions in advertising budgets. There hasn't been an hour gone by this year where we haven't seen tv ads for Titanfall, Destiny, GTA 5, and so on. I was under the impression that GG's faux beef was over art-house/casual games being given favorable reviews period, not that those reviews were crowding out the AAA's. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It is the logic thread of these writers speaking for the proGG voice, not necessary proven fact. More time for indie == less time for AAA, being the logic, and then expanding that this means that AAA games will wane. (There's certainly some holes there, but that's not our place to poke them). This correlates with the idea of the male gamer demographic being outnumbers by females drawn to mobile/casual titles. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, I feel like you're deliberately avoiding all the other articles I provided. I also added the Assange criticism. Clearly the criticism is more than "they're talking too much about indies!" It's also, "The press is biased and isn't doing its job!" Willhesucceed (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Assange's criticism is completely separate from these ancient articles on the vague understanding of what gamergate wanted to say about coverage of themselves in the press.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It ties in directly to charges of corruption and collusion. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Except there weren't any until Assange insinuated there were.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, BBC Business Matters doesn't know what it's talking about. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not listening to directly linked podcasts. Transcripts. Please.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

They're 5-10 minutes segments. First one starts at ~17:00, and the important part for the second one starts at ~20:45. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Gjoni concern

One thing I keep coming across over and over is statements to the effect of "Gjoni alleged Quinn slept with people for gain", but that's patently false. In fact, he went out of his way to state that he wasn't making that claim. It's a curious thing. I don't know how this misinformation has spread so far and high.

Just wanted to give a heads up to head off incorrect information being put in the article. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It does speak to the lack of care that the press have put into researching the controversy. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you care to point out where in the article it says this? Tarc (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't say this- we point out he claims she cheated on him, and added claim she did it for positive coverage came from others. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I know the article doesn't say this, I'm pointing it out just in case. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It has been in the article at various points, but we've removed it when added. There are similar incorrect claims about his posts, which generally the wording here has been able to avoid. - Bilby (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

New articles

Metro.co.uk commenting that GG may have been exacerbated by the frustration of a lackluster year of game titles. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, this sort of thing has been the subject of study before, i.e. the correlation of domestic violence to football losses. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily connect that here, but the Metro article does point out that GG has created a very recent situation that will keep psychology studies in material for years (hence why we would keep in mind that we're suffering from recentism here in focusing on some issues over others). --MASEM (t) 19:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like it'd be worth adding Halfhat (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Brenda Wu's op-ed in the WAPost. A few notes I'd highlight is that she like others have seen this hurting the prospects of women in the game industry, and that the long-term sexism/misogyny. Keep in mind this is her op-ed, so don't want to use too much of this. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually reading through it I notice a major problem. It cites this Wikipedia article. I think that make it a rather questionable source for this article. Halfhat (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't cite this article. It references that it exists.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about, the Metro article? It does not "cite" this Wikipedia article in the sense that it is using it as a source for information or commentary, the author of that piece simply pointed to the Wikipedia article as an example of another place on the internet that gets it right. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if it cites the WP article for information, I'm looking at the article for "new" claims that aren't present yet (eg so we are avoiding WP:CIRCULAR). But yes, this is simply saying "you can learn more about GG by reading WP's take" and not using that as the factual basis for their points. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, pleas be careful though. Here's what I was referring to "The Wikipedia entry . . . shows how the whole movement is based on nothing but the ravings of a female developer’s ex-boyfriend and a level of misogyny that you’d find hard to credit existing in the Middle Ages, let alone the modern day." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfhat (talk • contribs) 10:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Well they're right.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn on MSNBC's Ronan Farrow. Again, her take, so an op-ed for all purposes outside the bumper segments. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

NYMag/Boston Globe writer Jesse Singal on saying that the proGG needs to come to the truth to the mainstream media if they hope to gain any traction (I might have linked their other piece earlier, definitely their attempt to sway the reddit thread)). If anything, this one can be use to positively id the "central" discussion of proGG at 8chan and the reddit KIA board. --MASEM (t) 05:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

WAPost on Operation Disrespectful Nod and its success (their word for it). --MASEM (t) 05:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• To note, this comments on the Gawker situation and considering how the same tactics worked there. --MASEM (t) 05:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

A slightly slanted take at the Guardian but a point I've seen repeated at others that is tied to the culture war/death of gamer aspect - that some in the media see GG as a response by white males as losing their importance and trying to fight tooth and claw to retain their relevance, citing back to similar issues in the Internet lifestyle of 2007. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: we obviously (for reasons already stated) cannot use Breitbart/Milo's stuff, but the points he claims to be making that more advertizers are going to be questioning their ad campaigns with various gaming cites in lieu of the gaming sites treating their consumer base poorly (ala the Gamasutra/Intel thing) may mean more ad pulls, which is why I'm linking this so that we know to keep an eye out for the possible existence of these articles. Per WP policy, we'll believe it when we actually see it but it is the type of thing to look for if this is how Milo is claiming the GG side is winning. [14]. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wired's take, which might help collaborate a few other opinions from mainstream sources (particularly in pointing out the opinion of antiGG writers on the proGG's intentions or lack thereof.) --MASEM (t) 17:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

From the Wired article: "The vicious response to Alexander’s article was rooted not in objective concerns, but in the deep, persistent fear that she was right: that they weren’t the be-all and end-all of videogames anymore, that they might not always get to define what it means."

"One of the most common and disingenuous tactics used to undermine women in games is to claim that they’re not “real gamers” or that the works they produce aren’t real games..."

I'd just like to point out that the article is discussing the identity of gamers and their demographic control of the market, since previously it's been asserted that this is a lesser aspect of the controversy. Again, I feel many articles have brought up something about the identity of gamers and what it means, with this particular article declaring that Gamer Gate is scared they can no longer influence the medium they enjoy. Laura Hudson remarks on this loss of influence as a positive development the media should continue to pursue. YellowSandals (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I definitely agree that "identity issue" should be a major part of the discussion, with articles like this and others noting this. (However, when it comes to the "death of gamers" articles, those we should make sure to avoid to segregate carefully since these aren't quite the same thing) --MASEM (t) 23:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

NOW we can talk about Wikileaks

The Verge pointing out that WL is supporting the GG side due to the media/censorship concerns (though not proving/disproving anything). --MASEM (t) 19:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you suggest something like

"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange argued the alledged corruption of gaming journalism exists in all journalism, and that they should not focus their corruption and censorship concerns only on journalism within gaming."

I forgot to sign Halfhat (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's more like we can reference the AMA's existence and then point to the statements by The Verge that they seem to be leaping upon the group as an external voice to push an agenda like Adam Baldwin and the AEI did before them. Much of that article is critical of Wikileaks' involvement in Gamergate so we should present the criticism.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the statement could be as simple as "Wikileak's founder Julian Assange has shown support for Gamergate in the efforts to highlight corruption and censorship in media." Verge's criticism is, unarguably , biased, but establishes WL has supported it. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

We're allowed to point out the criticism, Masem.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism that is coming from one source is FRINGE, however. (You can't have it both ways here). --MASEM (t) 20:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

How is it WP:FRINGE? If we're using them to say that it exists we can just as easily say that they're critical of it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The Verge's criticisms are opinions, and given that they are the only one who has espoused said opinion, it is fringe. Julian Assange supporting GG however, is not an opinion. 24.192.67.45 (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

They're the only reliable source discussing Wikileaks' now explicit support of Gamergate in the first place. How is their criticism of something they themselves are the only people reporting on in the first place a fringe opinion? All or none.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning that WL has expressed support is a factual statement. Commenting on that support is an opinion, and even if it is the only opinion on the matter, is undue weight on that tiny tiny part of the larger narrative. --MASEM (t) 00:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

FFS, Wikileaks is a tiny tiny part of the larger narrative. There is no way that we can use this Verge article as a source to state that Wikileaks has gotten involved without including its criticism of Wikileaks getting involved because the criticism is the whole reason that article was even written.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I would have no objection to a paragraph dealing with censorship and the silencing of criticism. Assange's view may merit a sentence but the chief focus would, of course, be on the attempts to silence and limit the freedom of expression of Sarkeesian, Quinn et al., as noted in multiple first-rate sources. CIreland (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Different type of censorship but one that definitely can be documented as part of what the mainstream media sees the proGG action doing (harsh tactics to silence voices they don't like). --MASEM (t) 20:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, you don't want to make it seem bigger than it is. But I think that's just a little off. My impression is that he agrees about its concerns, but thinks the its silly and childish to focus on gaming journalism. Halfhat (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

To me, it seems like he is trying to take an easily impressionable group (namely they will praise anyone who is on their side at this point) and bringing them to his side by using their language to his advantage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

to anyone who reads the article it is clear : "'Gamergate' is not interesting," it said when I asked about its views on the movement. "That highly apolitical youth suddenly awaken to broader censorship, media ownership is." and as is clear from the earlier "#GamerGate'ers should know that the pattern of censorship & cronyism they see is mirrored at the very top. Level up:" - the whole "level up" is snide comment that their concerns haven't left the newb zone. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was encouragement to follow through to the top. Though perhaps this is the issue with social progress, 140 characters at a time. AnyyVen (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of the wikileaks twits are verging on incomprehensible, but "'Gamergate' is not interesting," is pretty clear. there is no interest in their claimed focus gamergate, only in the general principle of being a critical consumer of mass media particularly about actually important subjects. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe this is OR. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I added this above to the Media criticism section. Feel free to contribute there, too. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a different issue entirely, TBH.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

His support is extremely notable but coverage is barely if not-existant, I saw two articles that mention the AMA and cover all question except the shadowbanning/gamergate thing. Wikileaks even called out SJWs which is weird Loganmac (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

uhh, I dont know anyone who is in support of corrupt journalism and censorship. and the issue of "corrupt journalism" in relation to gamergate is repeatedly identified as merely an "ostensible". the claims of "censorship" have long been lost in the dust as anything any of the reliable sources cover when they discuss "gamergate" . and I am pretty sure that if gamergaters had two neurons that could make a synapse they would not choose someone who has been holed up for several years attempting to avoid charges of sexual harassment as the poster boy for claiming that gamergate is not about sexual harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Chill out man. These rants only help to polarize, and stop injecting personal opinion for things other than how best to improve the article. Halfhat (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

where is any effort to improve the article? littering the talk page with yet another link and no specific content suggestions is the issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

DUE or UNDUE

• Proposal to add: Many gamergaters began following and re-tweeting comments from Wikileaks which contrasted the front page coverage given to the death threats from gamergate to the lack of media interest in covering death threats that had been issued against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. While Assange found gamergate itself uninteresting, he was encouraged that a demographic of formerly "apolitical" people was now interested in the workings of the media.

References

for your consideration -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems good to me. I have no objections. Halfhat (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Does not seem good to me. "Supporters of Gamergate began following and re-tweeting Wikileaks' comments, which contrasted front page coverage of death threats attributed by news outlets to Gamergate to the lack of media interest in covering death threats that had been issued against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in 2010. Assange encouraged a demographic he saw as formerly "apolitical" people, Gamergate supporters, to become interested in the workings of the media."

How about that? Willhesucceed (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

No. TRPOD's was fine. There's no reason to play down the "Gamergate is not interesting" statement quoted from Assange.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"Supporters of Gamergate began following and re-tweeting Wikileaks' comments, which contrasted death threats attributed by news outlets to Gamergate to the lack of media interest in covering death threats that had been issued against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Assange said he found Gamergate uninteresting, and encouraged a demographic he saw as formerly "apolitical" people, Gamergate supporters, to focus on the workings of the media in general."

How's this? Willhesucceed (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"While Assange found gamergate itself uninteresting" sounds really tendentious, disagree, Halfhat's idea sounds way more neutral. And yet another mention of death threats because we can't have enough. "Gamergaters" is not a term anyone uses to refer to GamerGate supporters Loganmac (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"'GAMERGATE' IS NOT INTERESTING." is what the source found most interesting and used as a pull quote for gawdsake. That's the primary assessment from Assange about the subject of the article: gamergate. It is not "more neutral" to bury the lead or hide the third party assessment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

We have other reliable sources discussing WikiLeaks in relation to Gamergate: [15] [16] [17]. These should all be used in any material about WikiLeaks.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You keep bringing up the same sources like the newsweek that have been discussed multiple times and the same consensus keeps coming up: no they are not suitable - there is nothing specifically about gamergate, only WP:SYN-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no consensus. Stop stating that there's a consensus. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely a consensus that we cannot use the Newsweek article. Because there is nothing explicitly stated about gamergate it would be a blatant violation of WP:OR "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

How did I know you would ignore the other two sources in favor of focusing on the Newsweek article? The fact is, the other two sources (TechCrunch and The New Statesman) clearly connect the statement in the Newsweek article to GamerGate and all three together with this new source warrant mentioning more than what is in the suggested material above.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course you knew that the completely dead horse of Newsweek would be treated as a dead horse. But yet you brought it out to kick it again. The prima facia evidence of your WP:TE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Gjoni

Apparently, Gjoni has stated that he regrets that things have gotten this frenzied, but also that he would do it again. Should this be integrated into the article somehow? Other interesting points: the stress has caused him to resign from his job, and he doesn't actually care that much about games. DS (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Arguably no, but I'm not fully decided on that. In our narrative, the faster we get off that initial accusation and to what has developed since is key; Quinn still remains very much in the spotlight compared to him as to explain why we give Quinn more discussion. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe there are four or five of these sources. I'm not going to track them down, but others could. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Free Beacon

Some more politics talk. Link. Willhesucceed (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

please dont just litter the talk page with yet another source. if you dont have a specific content suggestion, doing so simply turns the talk page into a meaningless forum that results in lots of wasted time, increased frustration and no improvement to the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not think there is anything that is forumy about suggesting links that could be used to improve the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the 9 pages of archives and the no change to the article and make the argument that the "litter the page with links" method has helped generate better encyclopedia content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It helps to identify possible approaches to improve the narrative knowing what sourcing exists to back that up. This is not a waste of space, it's just that while this is locked down, and while things are moving relatively fast, it doesn't make sense to rush into figuring out the solution. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like a lone solitary opinion I've never heard before, "disliking #gg because it use similar tactics that are used by the selfsame people objecting against it." If we could find more sources that say the same then we could add that to the article. But right now all this could get would be a single sentence, maybe two conjugated sentences, if even that. Currently it's just an opinion. --86.145.190.189 (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This source could be useful in putting together a section on the increasing politicization of the debate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Adobe pulled from Gawker

Mary Sue, The Verge, Ars Technica, Adland

It wasn't advertising with them, but Gawker was using its logo anyway, so Adobe asked them to pull it.Willhesucceed (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop making new threads on these things.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Why? Willhesucceed (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Preferably keep it in one thread Retartist (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Each article I've posted is related to a specific aspect of this. Some politics, others business, others ideology, etc. I think it's better to put them in their own threads so they don't get lost. It also helps when new sources arise; then, I can just link to the old thread that's been archived instead of having to search through the now 100+ articles. Willhesucceed (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You could still keep it all in one thread so they don't get archived individually.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As you can see, I've collected all Adobe articles in this thread only. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics/Reason on SJWs

Cathy Young explains Gamergate's relationship with SJWs. It's not misogyny to take issue with grievance-mongers. This article will appear on Reason soon. Link Willhesucceed (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason you keep making these new threads like this?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If I had to guess, it's because every source that attempts to discuss what Gamer Gate is aside from "misogyny" has been shot down. He's just tossing darts at a dart board now and waiting to see which sources don't get immediately rejected, if any. Speaking of, this article contains a fair amount of research and level-headed discussion of the pro-GG side, highlighting some of the main gripes and cultural clashes that GG perceives, including an in-depth look at some of the positive and negative influences the Feminist ideology has played. It looks pretty professional. Ironically, although Wikipedia's acceptable sources page does mention biased sources are not considered reliable, they are being used to accuse Gamer Gate of misogyny in Wikipedia's voice for this article and also being used to justify the "Misogyny and Anti-Feminism" section which frankly seem slanderous to me, but I've expressed this.

I assume this article is useless until there are as many like it to defeat the quantity of articles saying Gamer Gate is about "dead gamer culture", "ingrained misogyny", and nothing else. YellowSandals (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's more of a question as to why Willhesucceed feels the need to repeatedly create new sections on this page regarding whatever new article he has found that discusses whatever subject the header concerns. And also, what Gamergate considers "biased" is different from what Wikipedia considers biased.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I maintain that inflammatory language that lacks clear definition and possesses an obvious negative connotation is not an objective, unbiased way to describe anything. I invite you to look a the Klu Klux Klan article, since I invited you to look at the Hitler article once before and you scoffed. Notice the Klan article doesn't open by saying the clan is a bigoted organization designed to spread evil. The opening statement describes various iterations of the organization, then distinctly states they're classified as a hate group "by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center". Factual information. Not opinions. How is it so prohibitively difficult to choose neutral language when writing this article? Just because the plurality of sources are calling Gamer Gate misogyny, that doesn't mean Wikipedia's voice should be used to directly describe this controversy as one of misogyny, especially when it's clear that people can and do disagree because the definition of "misogyny" is based strictly on non-uniform opinions.

Wikipedia contains clear examples of controversial groups and organizations being described in a neutral tone, establishing who holds which opinions without representing those opinions as facts. This article needs to be like those. Explain why this is impossible thus far. YellowSandals (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason you're writing essays in response to my two sentence comments? And this is not an article on a group. It is an article on a divisive controversy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a controversy that is being described on Wikipedia by using negatively connotative terms that lack universally understood definitions. The reasoning you have expressed to justify this has been that the plurality of sources say the controversy is over misogyny, in their opinions, and therefore the controversy is over misogyny as a fact. Wikipedia does not establish who feels this debate is over misogyny. It states, using Wikipedia's voice, that the controversy is over misogyny. With no clear definition what "misogyny" is actually supposed to mean here, because there is no clear definition of misogyny since it can be perceived differently by different individuals. YellowSandals (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I should further pursue, the article also includes an entire header titled "role of misogyny". As before, with no clear definition of what misogyny is or how this word is being interpreted by Wikipedia. YellowSandals (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That's because there's not much positive can be said about death threats, rape threats, etc. And Wikipedia has its own separate article on "misogyny" to define what it is. That doesn't have to be done on this page. And you are, like every gater editor before you, insisting that the use of "misogyny" on this page somehow means that "Gamergate is all about misogyny" when the article does not discuss that. It points out that there are misogynistic undertones and acts that can be considered misogynistic, just as it points out the desires for ethics and objectivity in games journalism rather than discussion of the plot itself. Just because one word is on this page does not define the whole of the subject by that word.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not asking you to paint Gamer Gate in a positive light. I am asking you to maintain a neutral tone and write the article to state who holds which opinions. Wikipedia does not hold the stance that the KKK is a hate group. "The Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center" holds that stance. Do you understand? Wikipedia does not hold the stance that Gamer Gate is a controversy of misogyny. Gawker, Times, and GamaSutra hold that stance. Representing the stances of these publications as the stance of Wikipedia simply because that stance is in the plurality is not acceptable. YellowSandals (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of reliable sources paint "Gamergate" as a pile of misogynist harassment. That is why this article will reflect that. Tarc (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That is why the article is biased. Because the plurality of sources have taken a stance, and Wikipedia has used that as an excuse to express the same stance. The article needs to state who holds the opinion that the Gamer Gate controversy concerns the non-specific, negatively connotative accusations. Wikipedia should not be openly holding this stance itself. The plurality of media sources are of the opinion that the debate is one of misogyny. A smaller slew of sources counter the controversy is over other details. Wikipedia, presently, has expressed an opinion on the matter by point blank stating the issue is one of misogyny. YellowSandals (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no way for this article to ever be "unbiased" based on the definition used by the gamergate movement, which is a non-centralized and vaguely defined group that has no way to represent themselves to dispell the concerns that they're reactionary, misogynist, and hatefilled. And we can't do jack shit while the article is protected.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It becomes unbiased by expressing opinions and stances as opinions and stances. By stating who holds those stances. Not by using Wikipedia to represent the stance with the greatest apparent prevalence as a fact rather than as a stance or opinion. I know the article is protected, but I think this is the core issue that needs to be resolved to remove bias. Gamer Gate is not a "debate concerning misogyny" - it's a cultural conflict involving multiple parties, and the involved parties each hold their own stances. Misogyny is a non-specific, negative accusation being levied against one side of the controversy by the greater quantity of sources, but that is not an excuse for this article to describe the controversy in those accusatory terms or to have headers describing the "role of misogyny" when it cannot be clear what is meant by "misogyny". YellowSandals (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Starting new threads insures the sources are noticed and can be discussed. Plus, the sources are not all related and raise different issues. Were this article unprotected it would be a simpler matter as we could immediately take action regarding the source. I believe you should stop complaining about someone posting sources that could be used in the article and try to discuss how they can be used. Her piece actually provides some great even-handed background information. This could also be of use on Sarkeesian's bio or on the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be a great article to help produce a level description of what Gamer Gate is about on the Gamer Gate perspective. However, because articles referring to Gamer Gate as "misogynist" or otherwise non-specifically wicked aren't deemed as biased for some reason, I assume this article's position that Gamer Gate may have more to do with a variety of concerns will get it labelled as fringe. Given the quantity of "reliable sources" accusing Gamer Gate of misogyny or of being composed of petty man-children, I worry that any article that discusses anything else will be labelled as fringe. YellowSandals (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason we can't give what the GG is from the proGG , as explained several times, is that there is no central leadership voice for the proGG that the media can identify to give a concise, accurate statement of the proGG side, so they have to guess and feel around. That is not WP's fault or responsibility to try to fix if reliable sources have tried and failed to come up with something. --MASEM (t) 06:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate concerns / campaigns

(Sorry for the length of this - I try to keep comments short, but this is a complex issue).

One of the difficulties I have in reading that article as it stands is that it is difficult to tease out what the concerns of GamerGate are. Those concerns are covered, but they're embedded in other sections - the nearest we get to a clear statement is in the lead, but that seems it cover three separate areas (sexism and misogyny with ethics in journalism in the first paragraph, ethics and threats to gamer identity in the second, and anti-feminism/social criticism in the third).

In the body, there's good stuff in "background", but as it is the background section it isn't clear to the reader how that applies to GamerGate as it stands. When we reach the allegations about Quinn, there's a statement that GamerGate is effectively concerned about close ties between developers and journalists and anti-social criticism, but the statement is bookended by comments on the harassment. The rest seems to suggest that a major issue is sexism. In the backlash section there's a statement that Baldwin highlighted the issue, however at this point I'm not sure what the issue is that he highlighted. Presumably it is what is explained in the previous paragraph, but that seems unlikely. There's also a mention of censorship in that paragraph, but as a complaint from GamerGaters, rather than a broader concern. There's a hint in "End of Gamer identity" that a concern of GamerGate is the presentation of gamers as "dying", but that isn't clear. We do hit a fairly clear statement much later in the article, when we quote Kain as saying that it incorporates a backlash against social criticism, but that is very late. In the "Legitimacy" section we get the clearest statements about their concerns, but only in the context of refuting them.

TL;DR version - I'm having trouble finding a really a single clear statement of GamerGate's concerns in the article. I understand that this in part because, as a leaderless movement, they don't present themselves well, and there is no single voice that can point to what their issues are. They also probably lack a clear focus anyway. But I think we need to make a clearer statement of the concerns as they've been reported

• Anti-feminism, or a response against social critique of games, especially in reviews, and the perceived lack of criticism of these types of critiques in gaming journalism.
• Ethics in game journalism, with the particular concerns being perceived close relationships between indie developers and journalists, and allegations of collusion in the industry.

I think we need a new section, something like "#GamerGate" positioned after the discussion of the harassment of Quinn. We move the use of the tag by Baldwin in that section, and make subsections "Concerns" and "Campaigns". The stuff from Kain about the anti-social criticism moves into "Concerns" along with the statement that the false allegations about Quinn and Grayson led to a broader discussion about ethics, and expand the section a bit with other sources on concerns regarding ethics and anti-feminism. Under "Campaigns" include Operation Disrespectful Nod, #NotYourShield and Dig Dig Dig, and possibly TFYC. Reactions and critique could follow on from this. - Bilby (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that the Gamergate movement has no centralization or representation to present these concerns coherently in the first place. They are vaguely known (more transparency in games journalism, removing cronyism/nepotism in games journalism, less desire for cultural criticism) but there's nothing concrete.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

How many sources are there for this operation Dig Dig Dig? I find nothing on Bing and exactly one mention on Google.

Other than that, yes, it would be a good idea to summarise coherently somewhere Gamergate's concerns and campaigns. Willhesucceed (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I remember a few references to Dig Dig Dig a while back, but if they're hard to find it can be dropped - it was their original plan to identify and highlight problems in game journalism, and continues to run in the background. Disrespectful Nod is the most visible one.

In regard to their concerns, I agree that the specifics are a big problem. But I was reading Jesse Singal's piece in NYMag today [18], and although the article is mostly talking about how hard it is to pin down their message, it covers the same two basic themes of ethics in journalism and anti-feminism, with the argument that the ethics concerns aren't very strong. Others make the same general observations: that GamerGate is concerned to anti-feminism and ethics, so I figured we could follow the sources on those two general concerns, even if we can't cover a lot of specifics. I must admit that I find the conflict between their aims an issue, but I'm not so concerned about the validity of their concerns for this section so much as a clearer statement about what they are. - Bilby (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The misogyny is an internet problem (not a gaming problem)

IBTimes.

I'll link back to the previous sources. Let's figure out how to include something about this? Willhesucceed (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing's been added to the article in weeks to even need to use this article to address it though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, if we worked together, instead of against each other, perhaps we'd be able to start adding things to the article. Willhesucceed (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is we all disagree on what it should be.Halfhat (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Instead of clinging to our version of how we think things should be, we should be willing to make concessions/compromises, in order to have at least something in the article. I believe that's encouraged in WP's guidelines. I've been trying to meet people halfway. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem right now is that things are moving "fast" in the situation (not that there are alot of events but there is a lot being written). So it is presently very difficult to judge how to structure the article past the initial few weeks. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Propose additions on pull outs

Please update the article on the following topics:

I find this article bias since it does not have a complete picture of what is going on with corporate pull outs of Gaming press.

• Adobe's view on gamer gate as consumer revolt, distancing itself from Gawker asking Gawker to remove their logo
• Mercedes Benz pulls out of GawkerSource2
• Also pull Unilever withdrawn advertising support for Polygon
• Olympus, the high-end camera company, has officially withdrawn support from Gawker Media
• Scottstrade pulls support for sponsorship for polygon
• Michigan Economic Development Corporation asked Gamasutra not to run its ads

Please add this information in somewhere. -Cs california (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Mercedes Benz has reinstated its advertising. I think Adobe is worth a sentence. The rest can be summarised as "X, Y, Z also pulled their advertising." That's about the weight they deserve since there aren't other sources. Willhesucceed (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

An article that could be useful for cover operation disrespectful nod

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/20/inside-gamergates-successful-attack-on-the-media/ It seems to cover the facts of it pretty well. Halfhat (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Keeping the article unbiased

Most Wikipedia pages out there are unbiased articles that take no side, provide legitimate articles of both sides, but there is no side that the article gives favor to. This article appears to be biased, as it leans on the side of the feminists. Now, although I am not in favor of feminists, I am in favor of having a article that gives legitimate reasons for both sides, but is overall, unbiased. I feel that this article is biased towards feminists as their arguments get entire sections, while the other side merely gets a subsection. I propose we try to keep this article as unbiased as possible and try to keep the article from taking any sides of the argument. Theawesome67 (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You have no idea what you're talking about. This article reflects what the preponderance of reliable sources have to say on the subject; if those sources give credence and credibility to one "side" of a topic, then the article reflects that. Those who feel the moon landings were faked do not get equal footing in Apollo 11, nor do the opinions of deniers get to "balance" holocaust denial. Tarc (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)