Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Sanctions enforcement

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

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

Discussion of my reverted edits

So I removed the following text

On Twitter, Sarkeesian called the episode "sickening". She wrote, "They trivialized and exploited real life abuse of women in gaming for entertainment."

Which was reverted. The reason I removed it was that the only source is the tweet itself. Nothing established it's significance. HalfHat 15:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being removed. We don't need any individual reviews of the episode. Something summarizing the general response to the show from RS would probably be better to replace it. — Strongjam (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe I reverted. While self-published sources can seldom be used in biographies of living persons, one exception is that a self-published source is a reliable source for the author's opinions. The stated rationale was that the source was Twitter, and since (a) there's no reason to think that the statement does not in fact reflect its author's views, and (b) that she holds these views is uncontroversial, there's no reason not to use the reference.

Now, we're asked to consider an entirely different rationale. The argument for significance is, presumably, that Sarkeesian is a noted expert in the area and is mentioned elsewhere in the article; her opinion is perhaps more notable and more interesting than a random writer. However, if we want to remove opinions, there are plenty of isolated minority opinions that remain in the article; Eric Kaine comes to mind. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sarkeesian, along with many others, have made countless tweets, it's a site infamous for unthoughtout blurts. A tweet from anyone per se, I don't think is significant to any topic. HalfHat 16:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

the opinion of the person upon which the character was based and whose life was "ripped from the headlines" for the show is far more relevant than many of the other tangential content included in this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not like it's an article written by them though, it's a single tweet. It barely even shows what they think of something, let alone how strongly, and how relevant to the issue. If their important find a quote from an article. HalfHat 18:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"it barely shows what they think of something"?? really? while 95% of twits are incoherent rubbish, "They trivialized and exploited real life abuse of women in gaming for entertainment."" makes it pretty damn clear what they think . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TRPoD. While it may be decided not to include that quote in the article, it's clear that this TV episode is based, in part, on her life experience. Including her perspective on whether it was fairly represented is of more significance than the view of an uninvolved viewer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It might be more efficient to clarify what policy grounds leads Half to dislike the quotation. My first impression from the edit summary was WP:RS, but that’s not an objection because Sarkeesian’s own statement is a reliable source for her opinion. The question of "significance" might be WP:DUE, but as Liz says, since the episode is partly based on her experience, her own reaction seems germane. It might be argued that the entire television episode is insufficiently important to discuss here and that it's a question of WP:COATRACK, but we include several very obscure statements from much less prominent pundits above who express minority views. WP:COATRACK applies to them with even greater force, since WP:DUE requires that we remove the outlandish coats along with the others. I do think we should not imply without argument that any of Sarkeesian's statements are "unthoughtout," even in a talk page, as thats skirting WP:BLP. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I was really criticizing at all was the reputation of Twitter since it requires no editing or care to make a tweet, we are talking about a site where very respectable people get into flame wars, as mentioned in a Sixty Symbols video. Just to clarify though, my objection is two fold, 1. it's only a primary source with nothing to show mainstream sources consider it even slightly notable. 2. It's on Twitter, a sight known for glibness. HalfHat 01:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your points, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources states Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field and then lists some exceptions which I don't think applies in this case. Social media, while seemingly ephemeral, is treated the same as if Sarkeesian had written a blog entry on her opinion of the show. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Or if Sarkeesian had said this in a public speech. Lots of people say silly things, but we continue to quote people who do say interesting things. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I find the inclusion of the quote a bit shaky - her reaction hasn't been covered by any independent sources (as far as I know, slap me if I'm wrong), and it would be silly if we cited a tweet anytime we wanted to get a view in lieu of the absence of secondary sources. The only reason I see to include it is because multiple sources have mentioned that one of the episode's characters is modeled after Sarkeesian, and so a reaction from Sarkeesian seems natural and appropriate - though I'd much rather see any reactions to the episode come from reliable and independent sources. Regardless, my larger concern is with whether or not the tweet is coming from Sarkeesian herself, as is implied in the article. The Twitter account represents the Feminist Frequency organization, and while it seems apparent that Sarkessian does post tweets on the account (and if I had to toss in a bet, I'd say she posted this one too), sans confirmation there's ultimately no guarantee that any particular tweet from that Twitter account is from Sarkeesian herself. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 10:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Where will we be setting the line on what tweets are viable for use here if this is allowable? This is not a road I think we want to go down, no one will be happy as a result. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Even on simply the basis that Feminist Frequency has become a major voice in the critique of GG gaming culture, lacking any of Sarkeesians personal involvement, the analysis is appropriate to be covered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so when we have pro-GG journalists, game industry insiders, and so on who have tweets that say otherwise, their analysis on Twitter should be included too, right? We're not going to try and have it both ways, where Twitter is only acceptable when it reflects the point of view of the editors on the talk page? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This is in fact probably the biggest issue, if Tweets can be significant per se, then that directly destroys the idea that significance is based on the coverage, basically editors can just say any opinion is significant. HalfHat 16:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No, editors cannot just say [that] any opinion is significant. If Slats Grobnick tweets an opinion about Gamergate, that's not significant; if one of the Gamergate targets, someone who just happens to be an expert on misogyny in gaming -- someone who is a Gamergate target because she is an expert on misogyny in gaming -- then, yes, her opinion is significant, and her Tweet is just as reliable for her opinion as a speech would be. This is policy: see WP:RS. If an noted expert in ethics in journalism -- the director of Harvard’s Nieman Center, say -- expressed an opinion on Gamergate, we'd cover that, too. (If Dan Marino tweets that Tom Brady’s the best quarterback of all time, that's worth covering; if Slats Grobnick says it, it's not.) MarkBernstein (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay firstly what qualifies her as an expert? I'm honestly not sure if you'd read what you are referring to, since nothing there refers to cases where opinion is expressed on something else in a self published sourced, it just says it can be usable for information about themselves. I don't see this being settled by us lot so I suggest bringing in external voices for this. HalfHat 17:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What qualifies her as an expert? She is the creator of an influential series of works on female representation in video games, in connection with which she has been widely interviewed and discussed. She has been invited to lecture on the subject at major universities: for example, NYU: [1]. She is the recipient of the 2014 Game Developers Choice Ambassador Award. She holds an advanced degree in the area.

External Voices: this page is well watched, but of course more experienced eyes are always welcome. Just how many aspersions can we cast on a professional person’s expertise, by the way, before “'What qualifies her as an expert? She's just not.”' rises to the point of a BLP violation? Just asking for my general fund of information. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You said she is "an expert on misogyny in gaming". Her Masters related to Strong female leads in TV. None of the other stuff implies expertese. Creating an influential series of works in an area doesn't imply expertese unless the influence is on academia. Many nonexperts create influential works in various areas. I'm not sure why you'd think the other stuff makes her an expert. Note: okay by expert I mean demonstrated to be an expert looking at the definition I see that's not required. I'll redact my statement that she is not. HalfHat 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Her expertise in "misogyny in gaming" isn't germane here. This is about citing her opinion on a TV show episode that was clearly model in part on her personal experience. — Strongjam (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

So where do we draw the line? Shall we embed a bunch of tweets from Gamergate supporters as well, since the TV show models what it believes to be their experience, too? Of course not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

We draw the line where we always do. The opinions of anonymous online trolls are never reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

How about non-anonymous non-trolls, then, since you're now opening that door? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

So everything else is okay then? Clearly not. Just saying "where we always do" without specifying where that is, isn't helpful. HalfHat 09:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Since the episode depicts harassment directed against an expert in the area of Sarkeesian’s expertise, based in part on her widely-reported experiences, her response to the episode certainly seems germane, while Slats Grobnick’s might not. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

But that's just us deciding it matters, not mainstream reliable sources, none of which thought this was important. Given it was based on GG to an extent, the same argument could be made to include the opinion of any GGer. I'm sure you would agree with me that we shouldn't. HalfHat 09:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Anita Sarkeesian Prominence

Rather than wade in and edit a page that is clearly the result of heavy editing as it stands, I wanted to raise an issue here in the expectation that this section will simply be deleted if others do not respond to it. In the first paragraph as it stands, Anita Sarkeesian is specifically mentioned and that paragraph ends with mention of "a threat of a mass shooting at a university speaking event". Now while certainly Sarkeesian is tangentially related to the Gamergate controversy, she was subjected to harassment before Gamergate. For example, to quote her Wikipedia page, "in March 2014 Sarkeesian was scheduled to speak and receive an award at the 2014 Game Developers Choice Awards. The organizers later revealed that they had received an anonymous bomb threat and that San Francisco police had swept the Moscone Center hall before the event proceeded." Given that the shooting threat on 14 October 2014 was made without the Gamergate hashtag, and - both in tactics and nature - followed a pattern that preceded the controversy, should this incident really be included in the head paragraph of this article?

There are two concerns here. In the first place, certainly the controversy is most widely known as a consequence of the objectionable tactics used by people who identified themselves with the hashtag. Once you have mentioned "doxing, threats of rape, and death threats", however, is it adding to a reader's understanding of the subject to specify a particular threat, especially given that did not identify with the hashtag? (For comparison, the first paragraphs of the Wikipedia article on Islam do not mention terrorism, nor should they.) The other concern is that while there may be some confusion in general media about how the Gamergate controversy situates itself within the wider and ongoing controversy regarding sexism in the video game industry and misogynistic harassment, Wikipedia should aim to dispel that confusion rather than merely reiterating it.

My suggestion would be that Sarkeesian is adequately featured in the "Subsequent Harassment" section of this article and that she could safely be removed from the first paragraph.

I would further suggest that the contentious term "misgynistic attacks" be substituted. I would suggest "abuse, often expressed in misogynistic language". The distinction is important because "misogynistic attacks" suggests that the hatred was directed at these particular women because they were women, which is certainly not known to be the case. Sordel (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:LEDE the lede is meant to be a summary of the rest of the article. The fact that Sarkeesian is adequately featured in the rest of the article (mentioned by name 25 other times) is all the more reason to mention her in the lede. Bosstopher (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I take your point, although counting how many times her name appears in the article only goes to show how disproportionately prominent she has become in an article on which she has comparatively little direct bearing. (Sarkeesian is not mentioned in the article on Sexism in video gaming, which is her main concern, to which she is directly relevant and which as it currently stands is largely concerned with sexual harassment.) As a commentator she is likely to be a secondary actor in a number of controversies and I would compare her relevance to this article as similar to Al Sharpton's relevance to Bernhard Goetz: while Goetz is mentioned in the Sharpton and Goetz articles, he is not mentioned in the Lede to Goetz's article. While Adam Baldwin is a principal figure in Gamergate (and credited with coining the hashtag), he is not mentioned in the Lede to this article. The Lede is required to be neutral, and part of this should entail distinguishing between figures of direct relevance (as Zoe Quinn clearly is) and figures who are connected largely by association. I do not say that she should be removed from the article completely, and this is because while she is a secondary actor (and secondary target) it may well be the case that readers consult this entry due to Sarkeesian's media presence.

Sordel (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE we cover the subject in the manner that the reliable sources cover the subject. If you can show that the reliable sources do not include Sarkeesian as a significant aspect of their coverage, then there may be a discussion. However, I find that unlikely as the terrorist death threats against Sarkeesian were the incident that brought GG to the NYT and that she was the model for the "ripped from the headlines" tv show about gg, it seems that we have her relevance appropriately covered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

When looking at all the sources? No, they actually don't use her as a significant aspect of the coverage. They mention her as part of the whole when discussing the harassment aspect, but Sordel is basically right that we spend perhaps more time than we should in the lede and, given what Bosstopher notes today, perhaps even mention her less specifically. Yes, undue weight matters, and this proposal would go a ways in balancing this article out. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

They cite her as a key component of the harassment, which is the basis of the almost the entirety of the coverage of the subject. The mention the GG obsession with her as a feminist critic as the key identification is a culture war which is the basis of the rest of the coverage of the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a disconnect here, as criticism of her predates the establishment of Gamergate as a named thing. And if what you say is an accurate assessment of the Gamergate activity surrounding Sarkeesian, then the lead is inaccurate as it only notes Sarkeesian as the recipient of harassment, not as a cultural critic who has been criticized herself. So which is it? If we're going to actually start using this article to accurately talk about the movement, I'm glad you're on board and how we address Sarkeesian is a solid place to start on it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sarkeesian is among the most frequently discussed gamergate targets and also a prominent gamergate critic. It's telling that this proposal ends in a suggestion to minimize or overlook the centrality of misogyny to the attacks, and the centrality of the attacks to gamergate as described in the preponderance of the sources. The proposal being contrary to policy, it cannot be accepted..MarkBernstein (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

As NPOV is policy, this is a proposal that addresses it head on and, if we're looking to build an encyclopedia entry, must be considered and addressed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, NPOV is a policy. This suggestion however, is a flagrant attempt to violate it. I think we are done unless you wish to continue at AE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what your threat is about, nor do I see this as an attempt to violate it. It is a good faith proposal from a long-time (albeit sporadic) editor that addresses key problems with this article, and deserves to be treated as such. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

the initial comment from a goodfaith editor new to the subject matter is not necessarily the issue. However, you Thargor Orlando, as a frequent editor on the subject should be familiar enough with the sources to help that new editor understand that their perceptions are not supported by the sources, rather than to encourage the beating of the dead horse and participating in WP:TE on a topic that has been endlessly discussed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You and I continue to have a disagreement on the sources, what they say, how we're using them, and how this article has been manipulated source-wise. This is not a dead horse, this is trying to repair an article that does not conform to site policies. Discussion is how we build consensus, not trying to continually remove dissenting viewpoints from the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to come back to the question of sources, it is not the case that all first-tier discussions of Gamergate mention Anita Sarkeesian. The initial articles in The New Yorker and London Telegraph dealt with Quinn alone and were the means by which the Gamergate controversy came to wider attention. If you Google "Anita Sarkeesian Gamergate" you will find that there are no references to her until 13 October 2014, at which point Zoe Quinn had been receiving death threats for over eighteen months and the hashtag had been used well over a million times. This is despite that fact that the harassment experienced by Sarkeesian is very similar to the harassment experienced by Quinn, and was in the public domain. Although Sarkeesian was a target of people with a similar mentality (and perhaps in many cases the same people) harassment of Sarkeesian only became conflated with the Gamergate controversy after she herself drew attention to it following the Utah State University talk cancelation. The reason that this episode was so widely covered is because of the mass shooting threat, which was not associated with the hashtag. Regarding Anita Sarkeesian as a central figure of the controversy is thus not a reflection of available sources: it simply reflects the sensational nature of a (possibly) unconnected threat coupled with the fact that she is a more public figure than the original victims, who were both games developers. Sordel (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, before Sarkeesian became the target of gamergate trolls, there is little press coverage of her in relation to gamergate. We are not however writing this article at a time prior to her entanglement in the mess. since gamergate began their persistant assault upon Sarkeesian, who has nothing to do with games journalism, she has consistently been in the center of the coverage of the controversy. gamergates obsession with her as a non journalist but rather a feminist commentator on games has been one of the key items that have turned the discussion of gamergate from pure harassment to harassment as an example of culture war in games. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing you've said here has addressed what Sordel has correctly pointed out. Can you address his concern, or is it time to start looking closer at how much attention we're giving Sarkeesian in regards to this topic? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The concern that Sarkeesian wasnt mentioned before she became involved has been addressed as irrelevant. The fact that she has been widely covered in everything since gg focused their claws on her is quite obvious by reviewing the sources since then. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant on what basis? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

irrelevant on the basis that of course she was not discussed before she was involved and that we are writing the article from the perspective of now, not prior to the time she was involved. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to state what I shouldn't have to but probably should: I don't have a position on Gamergate (other than, of course, the social media harassment is unacceptable and the initial criticism of Zoe Quinn was overstated) and am only interested in the accuracy of the article. I'm not contending that there is no point in the history of Gamergate at which Anita Sarkeesian does not become a relevant subject but the inaccuracy of the article as it currently stands favours one reading of events that does not adequately represent the timeline. Saying that Sarkeesian is mentioned by all sources subsequent to a particular point is rather like saying that the Duchess of Cambridge is mentioned in a significant number of articles about childbirth after a certain date: articles about Gamergate tend to be published either in popular media or in articles representing a particular ideological standpoint. Although the sources likely to be cited therefore have no obligation to neutrality, we do. Anita Sarkeesian is clearly something of a lightning rod: people who identify with Gamergate are generally hostile to her, people who are hostile to Gamergate frequently invoke her as a standard-bearer. But to treat her as a principal target of Gamergate is contentious and non-neutral: it overlooks the fact that Gamergate would have existed and merited a page on Wikipedia regardless of whether she existed or not. More importantly (and I suspect that this is why some argue for her continued prominence here) if Anita Sarkeesian is regarded as a principal target of Gamergate then it supports the position that Gamergate's claims to deal with journalistic ethics are specious because Anita Sarkeesian has no bearing on that particular argument. It paints a misleading picture that a hashtag used over a million times before a stated feminist was even embroiled in the controversy is specifically anti-feminist. If someone who is more widely covered than Anita Sarkeesian (say, Paris Hilton) becomes a target of people using that hashtag then does the weight of coverage alone turn that person into someone given equal prominence in the Lede? Would there really be no value in reworking the Lede to clarify what seems (to a neutral and reasonably well-informed bystander) to be an overview that seems factually misleading?Sordel (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If reliable sources discussing Gamergate reported extensively that Paris Hilton was experiencing vicious online harassment and death threats, then of course that would be discussed in this article, Sordel. We summarize what the reliable sources say, and they say a lot linking Sarkeesian with Gamergate. Sarkeesian is not just another woman who has given birth as have billions of other women. She is the victim of vicious harassment by people who say that they are motivated by Gamergate. (I do not know if she has children which doesn't matter here). Those are the incontrovertible facts, which will continue to be reflected and summarized in this article . Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 10:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This, again, is not entirely true. If reliable sources repeatedly linked Sarkeesian to a pro-GG position, we would not be including that in the article because it's clearly untrue. Sordel is making a very important, supported distinction that needs more attention. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a very big "if". The sources discussing the harassment of Sarkeesian are consistent, of high quality and have been thoroughly vetted. I am in complete agreement with the weight now given to Sarkeesian in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a big if, yes, but it's also a salient one. As some sources are giving an improper value to Sarkeesian's involvement (for lack of a better description), the question remains as to how high-quality the source is if it repeats falsehoods or advances misleading claims. I don't see a lot of "high quality" sources in this article when it comes to the topic of video games independent of the Gamergate issue, which might be a reason to point more toward specialized literature when appropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to convince other editors that your theory of "improper value" is correct, and you have not done so. It seems like original research on your part to me. Consensus on this matter is clear, and I believe that it is time to move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to convince other editors. Telling me to "move on" is not going to assist in convincing people, and noting the problems with sources on the talk page is what we do as editors, it's not OR. If you're not convinced, tell me why instead of trying to tell me to stop. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Source discussion

Please identify where the article does not comply with site policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

As noted numerous times, we spend a lot of time on secondary issues, we give undue weight to some sources and not enough weight to other sources of information, we aren't doing a good job vetting sources, not actually describing the movement in clear terms, we have the title of the article at a POV name, we're using questionable sources, we're not doing enough proper attribution of information and claims, and so on. The article is still very broken, and the continued ownership issues we're seeing has not yet been resolved even with a bunch of topic bans. Does that scratch the surface enough to start? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

1) identify secondary issues that should be cleaned out. (note: harassment is not one of them) 2) Which sources have too much weight and why do you think so? And much of the content as I look is from some of the highest quality sources, NYTs Columbia Journalism review, PBS etc so I think we are doing a pretty good job of vetting sources 3) " not actually describing the movement in clear terms," we are actually following the sources which say that when something consists merely of a hashtag, clearly describing it as a "movement" is pretty much impossible 4) the name of the article reflects what has been covered by the reliable sources and so is not an issue 5) Where specifically are items that are not attributed? 6) Vague claims are not specifics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

1 and 2) The focus on harassment is one of them, as it is given undue weight to the actual topic of Gamergate. The continued excuse that "this is what reliable sources say" comes from the fact that we've largely excised information used in reliable sources to discuss what it's about, and misused sources by assuming they get it right. The few times we've done the right thing, such as our handling of the ArbCom/Guardian piece, is commendable, but we can and should do more. We are not required by policy to focus on one aspect because of undue and counterfactual coverage in reliable sources, we are required to use our heads a bit. This should not be construed as an elimination of any specific aspect, but more a continued attempt to get us to handle one aspect of the dispute with the proper weight and context. 3) We're not really following the sources, we're following one aspect of the sources. If we were following the sources, we'd spend the bulk of time focused on what Gamergate is described as. You've asserted that it's solely a harassment movement, and the reliable sources do not take this point of view at all. 4) As demonstrated before, this is not a factual statement. There is no room for disagreement on this, you are factually wrong on this matter. 5) A very quick skim again shows problems with the second and fourth paragraphs in history, third para in subsequent, first para in debate over ethics, and I'll just stop there for now because it's showing even more POV issues again that need work. It's definitely improved, but we have a ways to go. 6) Vague claims of my supposed "vague claims" is not something I can address and isn't helpful. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources focus almost entirely on harassment and hence the article will too. Pushing to have our article present something other than a primary focus on harassment is plainly pushing the article against WP:NPOV.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And there's a continued dispute on this for the reasons I have outlined. Taking a hardline stance does not do anything in terms of helping build consensus and bringing the article in line with our policies. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

While this is yet another example of those "disputes" it is typical in that those "disputing" are never actually able to provide any support for the premise or position by showing actual significant coverage of the topic sans harassment in reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

When I point to the sources we use and say we're not handling them correctly, that is support of the premise and position. When I note that the coverage deals with both, that is support for the premise and position. Discussion you disagree with is not tendentuous, and blanket accusations as such are not helpful. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have specific sources to discuss, fine, bring them out. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue is definitively more general. We rely on sources not to flesh out the article, but advance a narrative. Part of the problem is that the media has not covered the issue responsibly, but I'll go back to my comparison to the GMO debate, something I've spent significant time on Wikipedia working on. What we know about GMOs is that the scientific consensus is that they're tested and safe, but the media consensus largely tells us otherwise. Under your stance for this article, our articles on genetically modified foods should be primarily about their lack of safety and the concerns of activists. Yet, when we actually verify the information, when we use proper editorial discretion, we move forward with the scientific consensus as it reflects what's going on. The same way with Gamergate: we spend an inordinate amount of time on harassment and trying to debunk claims instead of discussing the movement and its goals. This is not to say that the harassment narrative is not part of the complete story. It deserves its own section and an appropriate amount of coverage because of its place in the broader discussion. Unfortunately, this article places that small part of the issue (a part, by the way, that has a questionable relationship to the overall movement even as anonymous internet trolls use the hashtag as a breeding ground) front and center. It treats a commonplace problem of death threats on the internet (something I provided links about in the archive) as somehow specific and unique to Gamergate and gives it significant play. We can't do original research in the article, but when we're discussing how to use sources, we need to consider why we're taking claims as standard when authorities and those "in the know" do not give them the same credence, and balance it accordingly. In other words, it requires us to be smart about how we build an article, and make sure that we're not actually putting the fringe behaviors of questionably-related trolls as the main point of the article. When I first came to this article, I hadn't even heard of Gamergate. I did the research, and you're correct that the media spends a good deal of time on the harassment narrative (it's not the majority as we continue to assert), and you're correct that the majority of sources we use here (not all of them) are talking that up. When you remove (such as the Forbes/Eric Kain pieces) or diminish (like Cathy Young) reliable sources that actually speak in detail to what's happening and actually provide proper, sourced refutations of many of the claims, how can we then turn around and call the article accurate or NPOV? We don't need to start linking to Gamergate blogs or TotalBiscuit videos to get to that point, we just need to actually handle this with care. We're not doing that right now. We're instead advancing a narrative. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, specific sources are required for any meaningful discussion. and " Part of the problem is that the media has not covered the issue responsibly, " is a non starter. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Since it's a general problem, it requires general discussion to start. I have detailed where the problems lie, so if you're looking to assist in fixing it, let's do so. And no, it's not a nonstarter to discuss how the media is failing on this topic. It's actually key to getting to the bottom of this, just like we've had to for other controversial topics with similar problems. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You have laid out general claims of where you think there are problems. those general claims have been countered as not being supported by sources or policy. Now your options are provide specifics for action or come to the conclusion that our article generally, appropriately follows the sources and policies and your general claims are unfounded. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

They have not been countered, unfortunately. They've been dismissed without supporting evidence, even still. Policy requires us to write an article from a neutral point of view. Until the article gets even close to that point, you cannot say that policy doesn't support what is being said here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, until you can specifically identify where our article is not appropriately following the reliable sources, your assertions of "NPOV" are unactionable and meaningless. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, the undue weight regarding the harassment claims as opposed to what the movement is about. The NPOV title and structure. Please read what is being directed toward you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You are flat out wrong there if you think the sources in the article, particularly the highest quality mainstream ones are not covering the subject as primarily harassment / harassment as evidence of a culture war. If I am wrong you will be able to quickly specify those sources that support your claim that they are not covering harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, the quality of these sources in this subject area are not exactly high quality. Much like how we have to be careful about how we use mainstream media sources on scientific topics, we need to really consider whether the mainstream media really understands the topic they're discussing. Just because a media outlet confirms a belief does not make that outlet correct or "high quality" in context. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no technical specifics needed to examine internet harassment or "games journalism ethics" that the mainstream sources lack. They have examined and come to their conclusion. That you dont agree with their conclusion is irrelevant. 14:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You'd think so, but the coverage is showing us otherwise. Mainstream media doesn't understand the culture within, have a history of poor reporting in the space, act as if death threats aren't sadly typical, and allow their own biases to get in the way as a result. This is all background information that should lead us to reconsidering how we handle this sensitive topic and how we judge the reliability and viability of the claims made in the so-called "high quality sources." Are you up for it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That death threats may be typical of gamer culture is irrelevant. Reliable mainstream sources have decided that death threats under the gamergate auspices directed at women in gaming (and belatedly "justified" with inane "but ethics!" ) are worthy of coverage. Just like my dog Sparks not being worthy of coverage because he is just a typical beagle, doesnt mean that the Miss P is not worthy of special focus by those who care and that because of that focus and coverage, that is what the article is about. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That death threats are typical means we need to put the article in the proper context. Why oppose that? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

When you provide SEVERAL reliable sources that say "death threat campaigns like the ones against Quinn, Wu and Sarkeesian are typical of the gaming world." we can include that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree this seems like WP:SYNTH to me. — Strongjam (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be synthesis if we included something about death threats being common in the article. That's not what I'm asking to do or saying. What we should do is contextualize how we use such claims in the article as a result of what we know about the issue, much like we do with every other topic in the project. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

much like we do with every other topic in the project, we are covering this as the reliable sources cover it. Please identify what "contextualizing" the sources do that we have not? (WP:SYN and all being that we cannot make "contextualizations" on our own.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The reliable sources cover it as a movement, but you're against that. The reliable sources cover it as an issue concerning gaming journalism and aspects of the harassment, but you're against that. Yes, we can and do contextualize sources on our own all the time. It's how we've marginalized good sources like Cathy Young and elevated misleading ones as main contributions to this article. I agree we must use reliable sources. Let's do so. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The reliable sources cover it as a harassment movement, or maybe use "movement" in scare quotes, or call it a catastrofuck, or analyse its qualities as a movement and say, nope - random anonymous trolls on the internets, or use movement as a shorthand for something for which there is no good term (see the previous grouping). To select only those from the final group is most definitely NPOV violation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how many times we need to repeat this, but the reliable sources don't do what you're claiming at all. What do you need to see so you can understand it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In the case of genetically-modified foods, there exists a substantial scientific and technical literature which Wikipedia can, should, and does examine and to which it accords WP:DUE attention. In the case of GamerGate, there exists no scientific or technical literature. The published sources, unfortunately, do not attach much (or, really any) credence to what you assert is true -- they report on GamerGate’s misogyny and harassment, period. Those “in the know” are the writers in the Washington Post, the New Yorker, the Boston Globe. For some reason you want to think that Eric Cain or Cathy Young or Total Biscuit know better, that you know better -- but we don’t do that: we follow the WP:DUE weight of the WP:RS reliable sources. Please stop this; it's pure WP:FLAT in search of a WP:FORUM.MarkBernstein (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, the published sources do lend great credence to what I'm saying. I know this topic has impacted you in a really significant way (the writings you link make that very clear, and I do not intend to speak out of turn by noting this), and it might be why you're perhaps letting your own point of view shade things. I have no dog in this fight outside of a neutral encyclopedia article that handles the topic responsibly. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You have been asked multiple times to provide these sources. Claiming sources exist without actually ever providing them is beyond disruptive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And multiple times, I have told you that those sources are already in the article. Please stop with the continued baseless accusations. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There are 175 sources in the article. Which ones are you speaking about? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the best solution here would be to create a list of sources which espouse alternative viewpoints that you believe have been left out or underutilized. Also it's probably not wise to make even vaguely personal comments about Mark given that he is on a final warning about making personal comments, and would not be able to respond in turn. This is a good thing given how he responded in the past, but that still doesn't mean you should do things that can be construed as abusing the situation. Bosstopher (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not a hardline stance to say that we should follow the source. The consensus has already been built and is not ambiguous. The current article, in accordance with policy, describes the known activities of Gamergate -- its campaigns of misogynist threats against women in computing. One might wish Gamergate had accomplished other things, but it has not -- or, if it has, those other accomplishments have not been widely reported by reliable sources.

You say that the name of the article is objectively wrong, yet the contrary consensus could hardly be more clear. Just a few days ago, you proposed to rename the article; four individuals supported the idea, twenty three opposed, and it was swiftly snow-closed. Yet here again, just a day or two later, we're asked to contemplate precisely the same proposal. This is not consensus building, it's open defiance of both consensus and policy, backed by WP:POINTy threats that you'll bring complaints against editors who do not conform. If there's WP:OWNership here, we know (and now the world knows: http://www.markbernstein.org/Feb15/Press.html) where it lies. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, I have not threatened to bring any complaints, sorry. The rest of this is not an accurate rant, and I don't see any need to address it further. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperative and collegial approach. What I wrote is accurate, concise, and speaks directly to the points (such as they are) you raised. I'm glad you plan to drop this subject, however, as I am confident my explanation, an TRPoD’s, represent the consensus of the sources and the consensus of Wikipedians. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

References

A magical and wondrous list of heterodox sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Conversation above doesnt seem to be going anywhere so I've decided to collate all the heterodox reliable sources I can find for discussion, so we can discuss whether or not they have been given due weight. WIP right now, because this is a soul crushing experience and seeing the words 'published 5 month ago' on an article about gamergate really gets you down. Feel free to dispute reliable sourciness for articles linked, and add any articles to the list.Bosstopher (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Heterodox sources

Cathy Young 'GamerGate: Part I: Sex, Lies, and Gender Games' Reason claims Gamergate rejects harassment, portrays "Gamers are over" articles as harsh attacks, downplays role of Zoe Quinn, notes harassment gators have faced, argues that female gators have a strong influence within the movement. Worth noting that this the original article this was based on had to be amended to remove false accusations against Zoe Quinn. Cathy Young 'GamerGate, Part 2: Videogames Meet Feminism' Reason Doesnt focus directly on Gamergate more a general discussion on feminism and videogames. Does however argue that Mike Cernovitch is a 'genuine misogynist' who does not represent Gamergate, which is better represented by its female advocates. Also takes Bokhari's "anti-authoritarian" line. Cathy Young 'Misandry in the GamerGate Controversy' Reason Rejoice tRPOD! She refers to it as a controversy and not a movement. Criticizes the Newsweek analysis. Notes both sides have been harassed. Argues gamergate IS a backlash against feminism (but also ethics), talks about a woman who sided with Gjoni. Auerbach 'Letter to a Young Male Gamer' Slate Sides very strongly with Quinn, says people should stop even criticizing Quinn for fear of driving women out of the industry. However praises 4chan for supporting TFYC. Really strong critique of Gawker and Kotaku (acusses them of hypocrisy), argues GG should self police. Auerbach 'Gaming Journalism is Over' Slate No point of summarising this one we've all already re-read it 20,000 times. Auerbach 'How to end Gamergate' Slate Ditto Auerbach 'Twitter is broken:Gamergate proves it Argues Leigh Alexander's twitter behaviour is unprofessional of her. Notes 'sealioning' by gators, harassment Liana K faced from GG, notes harassment faced by GGers. Claims twitter brings out the worst in everyone. Kain 'GamerGate: A Closer Look At The Controversy Sweeping Video Games' Forbes Focuses on role of Streisand effect, TFYC and Fish. Looks at connotations of the words 'SJW' and 'misogynerd.' Argues press and PR are too cosy and readers no longer trust them. Also alienated by overly left wing press. Argues people like Milo coopted GG Kain 'The Gamer is dead long live the Gamer' Forbes Kain being Kain and discussing the 'gamer entitlement' issues in a Kainesque way. Argues Leigh Alexander's GaD article was needlessly combatative, and is 'nearly convinced' that most gator dont actually care about ethics just anti-feminism. Kain 'What #GamerGate Is Actually About?' Forbes GG is not about ethics in journalism, is anti-feminist criticism in reviews but tolerates right wing criticsm. More Kainesque 'gamer entitlement' discussion. Claims there's not enough healthy dialogue between feminists and their critics, and generally little actual discourse in games journalism, GG has only served to make things worse in this regard. Exit pursued by Bing Crosby. Interview with Adam Baldwin for Rawstory Baldwin's views on GG: GG won, liberals agenda etc. Hayley Tsukayama 'How some Gamergate supporters say the controversy could stop “in one week”' WaPo Notes how Gamergate define themselves, harassment faced by gators, and streisand effect. Bokhari 'Gamergate: An issue with two sides' TechCrunch Argues gamergate has been reported to purposely emphasise harassment and not the good things they've done. Anita is the new Jack Thompson and game journalists have joined the dark side. TFYC and notyourshield show gamergate arent misogynist. Culture warriors vs gamers. GaD articles were "culture warrior attacks" equates them to doxxing and hacking of TFYC. Info on Streisand effect Greg Tito 'Why I Still Call Myself a Gamer' Escapist Condemns harassment and says GaD articles were poorly phrased Male Game Dev interviews Escapist Can't be arsed to read these and summarise (I'm fairly certain this is a universal reaction and the reason they were never included in the article) William Usher 'Stardock CEO, League of Legends Devs, Others Support #GamerGate' Cinemablend Self explanatory title: although interesting to see Devi Ever's pro-GG arguments before she changed sides and changed name Pete Haas 'GamerGate: Everyone Hates Each Other And I'm Really Tired' Cinemablend Streisand effect, why there was a backlash against GaD, similar ideas to Kain about a divide between journalists and gamers, but believes the rift is not as big as people make it out to be. Whole load of notyourshield and TFYC articles by William Usher on cinemablend [2][3][4] Mike Diver 'GamerGate Hate Affects Both Sides, So How About We End It?' Vice Claims the misogyny aspect of GG makes easy headlines. harassment of gators. Notes feminist gators. Interview with female feminist gator. Mentions GameJournopros, and gamers are dead as grievances. Vice interview with Eron Gjoni "Dont vilify Eron Gjoni" Probably not relevant to the article, but very heterodox. Matthew Codd 'Gamergate supporter receives death threats' About boogie Carter Dotson 'I'm ashamed of progressive game culture, and here's why' PocketGamer claims GG hates the way progressive culture is operating, argues for positive change instead of negative criticism. Praises TFYC

• Using Cathy Young: You would need to point out that it's largely opinion, and that she takes an atypical stance on what feminism. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Using Kain: There are 29 archives, and the Kain debate appears on almost all of them. Largely opinion, and it looks like many try to use Kain's opinions to insert content that is not fact. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Using cinemablend.com: Not familiar with this website. RS? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Using Bokhari: Um... He spends a lot of time calling stuff supported by the majority of the RS myths. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Using Mike Diver (vice): Hard to view him as an RS when he's going on about GameJournoPros - the conspiracy idea around that is largely discredited by most RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"We can't possibly use Mike Diver as a heterodox source to represent Gamergate! His views are heterodox, and he supports Gamergate!" What's the point of collecting sources on Gamergate if you're going to have this mentality? Of course a heterodox article written from the point of view of Gamergate is going to support Gamergate and not accuse its own group of misogyny. You don't honestly believe that Gamergate supporters are a cabal of evil misogynists hiding their motives behind fiendish trickery, do you? I hope you're not looking for a reliable "pro-Gamergate" article that for some insane reason admits to and discusses Gamergate's inherent, objective, inhuman badness. I'm sorry, but any article that sympathizes with Gamergate or feels compelled to explain their interests is not going to disparage that group with those kinds of insults! YellowSandals (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the idea of conspiracy among "GameJournoPros" is thoroughly debunked by most other RS calls his reliability into question. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Except GameJournoPros did exist and there was no "debunking". From a realistic perspective, there are a lot of benign reasons for game journalists to maintain a mailing list with each other. However, the "debunk" was simply the journalists saying that they didn't do anything wrong. The fact is, it still looked wrong to people in Gamergate and it upset them. So why, exactly, is it so crucial to see people talking about GameJournoPros, see people angry about GameJournoPros, then dismiss GameJournoPros and say, "No, Gamergate started because of misogyny. GameJournoPros is an insane conspiracy theory that has been debunked by God Himself and to question this, even in the most observational manner, is grounds to believe someone is a deranged radical with nothing intelligent to say". I mean, look, you've got these articles where people are clearly mad about ethics in game journalism just like Gamergate says. I know that "misogyny" is easier to understand and has been the most orthodox explanation for all the outrage and public statements over these past few months, but maybe, just maybe, there isn't a cute little explanation for some political controversies. Seriously, if you think some political conflict can be summed up in one world, you're being naive at best and indulgently stupid at worst. How can editors continue to see plausible explanations for an angry mob, even if it's misguided, and dismiss it as if you were the French aristocracy dismissing the peasants. Like, "Oh, they're just being misogynists. Let them eat their cake and they'll settle down tomorrow".

I'm just saying, there are probably more elaborate reasons for some of the behavior we've observed in this conflict, and you do a disservice by being dismissive of it. You can look back at the American civil war, and although you don't have to say anything positive about the ethics of slavery, you can certainly see what economic advantages it provided and note that abolishing slavery did do financial harm to the South, just like the South said it would. This is life for you. Things are not simple and people wouldn't waste this much time and energy on harassing women for its own sake. I'm not sure what hard, verifiable benefit gamers would get from being misogynist, and we're not seeing much speculation on that either beyond, "Well they want to be boys and think girls have cooties". Maybe find some articles talking about what Gamergate specifically gains from being misogynist, aside from avoiding cooties. Otherwise, this article continues as it always has, vaguely alluding to but mostly trying to refute any reason for the controversy to exist in the first place. There's honestly no value in an encyclopedia article that goes about casting demons as a primary objective. YellowSandals (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If they didn't so anything wrong, there's really no point in including it. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hat inflammatory rhetoric, WP:SOAP and comments about others. Dreadstar ☥ 18:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ethics in owning slaves. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC) I'm speechless.ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC) This is the problem. I name slavery as an unethical thing people would fight to maintain because their livlihoods rest on it, and in a self-satisfied manner you find yourself "speechless". Like you live in a fantasy and can't imagine a world that isn't past the second star on the left. Did you not take history? Did nobody tell you about this? Maybe you just grew up in some insulated background where injustice doesn't exist to much note. "Gasp, how dare someone acknowledge the reasons the South engaged in the American Civil War? What a bigot. We must shun this information from our encyclopedia lest children read and gain disreputable ideas." This kind of stuff makes you sound like a proselytizing chuckle-head. There's a whole list of sources just sitting here that talk about believable reasons people would join or defend Gamergate. You can't just sit there saying, "We can't print this! These people's opinions are not in line with things we believe!" in an article that is actually about these people or focused on them centrally. YellowSandals (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC) I mean, what I'm getting at is that you're placing me under the impression, here, that you'd remove all reference to any of the financial benefits slavery if you could morally justify doing so in your head. I guess in a misguided attempt to prevent people from thinking slavery was good for some reason, but as the ignorant are want to do, all you're doing is spreading ignorance. If you can't bring yourself to properly understand people or things, you're doing harm by trying to force the world to function the way you want. These are just people. That's all Gamergate is. Just people doing people things. Given an earlier time period Gamergate might have included pitchforks and torches, but here you are, acting aghast about it. Grow up and just approach this thing in a level-headed manner and forget about trying to maintain a narrative of good and evil. YellowSandals (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Please desist talking about me. Stick to the topic on hand. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not Cathy Young is "atypical" is not really relevant to this. They're also not opinion pieces, but actually articles on the situation in question. Looking at the Young piece, it makes me realize we missed an Andrew Sullivan piece as well that would be good to use.

This is a good start, so thank you. There's a lot from The Escapist we're not using as well and probably should, but calling them "heterodox" may not be accurate. They're heterodox according to the POV of editors here, but not really to what is happening within the movement and in video games in general. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE we follow the views mainstream sources. not a group of internet trolls preferred version of themselves. please stop stonewalling against well established policy- this is not the place where policy will be changed, as made clear in the findings of the arbcom. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of the sources i listed are definately heterodox in approach, and some such as Bokhari even comment that they are writing outside of the journalistic mainstream. Orthodoxy isnt about "what is really happening." There's a reason I didn't call it a list of "factually incorrect sources"Bosstopher (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No one is looking to change policy. We're looking to make an NPOV encyclopedia entry. The accusations you're levying are getting tiring. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Even the best of these heterodox sources falls at the very bottom edge of the reliability of the mainstream sources. If we drop down for inclusion of the heterodox sources, we open it back up to the lower quality sources that take even a more hardline stance against gamergate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if Reason, Wapo, Slate and (arguably) TechCrunch fall into the "bottom edge of reliability." However heterodox articles from all three publications have been cited, so perhaps they've already been given due coverage. Based on what I've looked at so far here are my initial thoughts: we have quite a few interviews with pro-GG people in articles, this would be useful to outline how gators themselves posit their views. Because as it stands we're knocking arguments down without stating what the arguments are in the first place. Also amongst the heterodox sources, the two main focuses that have been neglected in the article are their thoughts on the "Gamers are dead" articles, the divide between journalists and readers, and positive thoughts on TFYC (which would perhaps be better placed in the TFYC article). Also if such a focus were added I think it would be a good idea to add these lower quality "hardline" anti-GG sources you're referring to, so that GG's arguments arent given a free ride in the article.Bosstopher (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If the entry is opened to "heterodox" sources, then there are many more of those kinds of sources that are very critical of Gamergate that haven't been included. This would open the floodgates to all kinds of additions that aren't reliably sourced. This would turn the entry into a platform for every minority opinion about GG. If people think this entry is big now, it'll balloon if we lower the bar on the quality of sources. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Enough talking about others. Dreadstar ☥ 05:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thargor Orlando calls our attention to sources with knowledge of "what is happening within the movement and in video games in general," that is, I suppose, sources that share his inside knowledge of what’s really being planned now at GamerGate HQ. TheRedPenOfDoom suggests that we stick fairly closely to The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Guardian, The New Yorker -- that is, the prominent sources to whom the world (and Wikipedia) gives credence. In this case, Thargor Orlando might be on to something. We could open the article to all speculations from experts in video games who believe they have special insight into GamerGate plans and intentions. Let’s publish a wider selection of the GamerGate harassing messages: they’re true but -- alas! -- not actually quoted in the usual sources because the usual sources don’t use that language. Let’s also publish those gorgeous anti-Semitic caricatures of Anita Sarkeesian; Brianna Wu did, and she knows a bit about video games. Let’s publish the restraining order that protects her: it’s a public record, and if we're waiving WP:RS and WP:OR to squeeze some video game blogs and lover’s rants into Wikipedia, why privilege those above official orders of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? This discussion is entirely outside policy: WP:CPUSH and (especially WP:FLAT. Please stop. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Inside knowledge could just as easily be acquired from a fascination and interest in the topic someone is writing about, most of GG's plotting occurs on public online forums. Stop accusing people of being secret gators.Bosstopher (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC) I don't think he's doing that. I think he's pointing out that people are claiming special knowledge is not being included, but can't provide reliable sources. In fact I got up through archive 10 looking at the source arguments - this has all been hashed out before. And many of the people in this discussion know that already. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Not special knowledge, just basic knowledge. And yes, we've been down this road before, but now that some of the most disruptive elements have been topic banned and that the flames have died down, it might be possible to make some progress on an article that reflects our content policies. This idea of "secret knowledge" is really bizarre. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Specifically what do you think is basic knowledge that is missing that is supported with reliable sources? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

As a general response to a lot of the comments User:Thargor Orlando has been making: You argue that the sources cited for this article should not have been utilized because factually inaccurate, comparing it to coverage of GMOs. But unlike with GMOs academic coverage is sparse, and you have yet to point out a situation in which a claim made in the article clashes with academic consensus. You've brought up our handling of Arbitration gate as an example of what we should be (but are not) doing in the rest of the article, but there are a lot of cases where we have left out factually inaccurate information mentioned in sources. For instance there are a lot of reliable sources from early on in the controversy that claim (Redacted), perhaps more than the number of later sources clarifying that this isn't true. Yet this factual inaccuracy is not included in the article, simply because it's known to not be true. Is there anything that is completely factually wrong in the article which you believe needs remedying, or anything which you believe clashes with academic consensus?Bosstopher (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think your interpretation is entirely accurate, but it's done in good faith and I won't quibble. The amount of Sarkeesian coverage, the amount of time we spend supposedly debunking claims, the primary activity of looking at this solely through the lens of harassment, those are all factual problems that we should deal with. This is too often interpreted as "don't talk about X," and that's not my intention. But if someone with no knowledge of this topic was sent here, they would come away with a very different idea of what the topic is about than, well, what the topic is about. When we use lower quality sources (defining as such as sources without solid knowledge of the games industry or games journalism, and/or sources that peddle misleading claims), that's going to be the end result. Plus, the fact that most of this article was built during a time of really high tensions by people who were (in many cases) understandibly angered by some of the activity surrounding the players both on and off wiki, it results in a really poorly crafted article. I'll keep beating the drum that we really need to look closer at how we're handling this topic, because it's definitely not done so with our core policies in mind. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What items do you think need to be added? And do you have reliable sources to back up their inclusion? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

More information on what "pro-GG" advocates believe. More information on what has been achieved. Less attempts at "debunking" (much of which is incorrectly asserted). More proper attribution. More focus on what the movement is as opposed to what its opposition believes it to be. We can do all that with current sources and with adding more from already-reliable sources as listed above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Write up a few sentences with associated references? Since you seem hesitant to add as a direct edit, make a draft somewhere for us to look at? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Thargor Orlando: it seems like you're approaching this from the viewpoint of "reliable sources can't be trusted because they haven't researched the real Gamergate and are therefore not able to report on it accurately". I counter that reliable sources have researched Gamergate in all of its nebulousness, and have not only determined that harassment is a primary underlying goal, but also that Gamergate supporters' own self-professed goals are irrelevant or misplaced ("ethics in journalism"), deflection and public relations (The Fine Young Capitalists, #NotYourShield), or about attacking contrary ideologies ("Operation Baby Seal", complaints about "social justice warriors"). And this is not my personal opinion, this is what reliable sources have stated loud and clear. We're simply not going to give undue prominence to unreliable/primary/self-published sources soapboxing about the great things that Gamergate has done, when reliable sources have already considered those viewpoints and roundly rejected them. Woodroar (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)\\

No, not really. It's not even a matter of trust, it's a matter of accuracy. Many of the reliable sources we use in this article say that, sure. As noted, and as seen above, it's not the whole story and really isn't the true one. No one who has spent any time here is arguing to use unreliable or primary or self-published sources, so that's just a strawman. What I'm arguing is responsible usage of sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources of the quality of Columbia Journalism Review, PBS, The Week , the NYT, the New Yorker etc etc that support your position that there is a widespread perception of gg that we are not covering appropriately. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Not the point. I'll repeat: what is going on with GG is not the same as what many of these "high quality" sources are reporting, thus bringing into question whether they're high quality for this topic. For example, the amount of changes to ethics guidelines in gaming media over the last 6 months isn't getting reported by "high quality" sources, but trolls who may or may not be involved with the movement harassing some women in the industry is. What, in a topic about Gamergate, should get the attention? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

We follow the sources, not your personal knowledge of "what is going on with gamergate" . AND the reliable sources have looked into the "ethics" and "objectivity" and "collusion" and found them baseless. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

We should follow the sources, yes. The sources do not support what we see in the article, and not at the extent we cover what we do. This is not "personal knowledge," it's information from reliable sources. You can say they found such claims baseless, but you and I both know that the sources we're using for those claims are quite old and outdated. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You will VERY MUCH need to provide ACTUAL EVIDENCE that the any of the claims about living people that the "quite old and outdated" sources clearly and loudly debunked are not still clearly and loudly debunked. Just because it has been hundreds of years since "The Earth is Flat" has been debunked does not mean that "The Earth is Flat" is not still debunked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not geocentrism, this is gaming journalism, a group with a history of questionable behavior when it comes to disclosures. That we can point to a number of gaming magazines and sites that have improved/updated their ethics and disclosure policies following the explosion of the hashtag is important. I'm not sure we can use these in the article, but information exists, and it takes two seconds to Google. The evidence is there, and the real world implications are apparent. It's long past the time for the article to reflect this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, we reflect the reliable sources and you are providing no reliable sources, so you are presenting NOTHING for us to reflect. It is long past time that people stop whacking that dead horse.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what dead horse is being whacked. I've provided plenty of sources so far, there are plenty under the hat provided the other day, and more from those sources. They dispute exactly what you claim, so maybe the dead horse is the continued claim that there's no coverage of what we're talking about? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Taken care of. And no one is 'loosening' WP:BLP or WP:RS criteria. Dreadstar ☥ 05:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please remove the BLP violation. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC) I presume ForbiddenRocky refers to @Bosstopher:'s edit, above? I think there's a BLP there too, but I daren't touch it myself lest the Armies Of Mordor Gamergate fans take offense (again). Also, in the following by Thargor Orlando, the phrase "peddle misleading claims" in reference to (say) The New Yorker is rather colorful. I think few would accuse that editor of failing to have beaten the drum to which he refers. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC) @MarkBernstein:, @ForbiddenRocky:. I'm not seeing the BLP violations, but I'm also a little out of it right now with a cold. If neither of you want to do it just email me with what you think needs to be {{redacted}}. I'm sure Bosstopher won't mind. — Strongjam (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Redaction done. — Strongjam (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks, in these situations I guess it's better to err on the side of caution. But is mentioning that something is a false accusation a BLP violation? This seems like a grey area where it would be important for admins to clarify. Did they clarify while I wasn't paying attention? Or did I say something which WAS a BLP violation without clarifying that it's false? If so could someone email me my offending claim so I dont accidentally do it again. Bosstopher (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC) I'm not 100% sure myself. I redacted out of an abundance of caution. In cases like this I suppose it best not to bring up the specifics of false accusations to avoid repeating them. Even in the context of saying there are false it is probably tiring for those involved to see them. — Strongjam (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC) @Bosstopher, Strongjam, and MarkBernstein: Looking through the archives (ugh) I saw certain things were being removed for being BLP violations repeatedly. The currently redacted bit was one of them. I think an abundance of caution is good here, especially given the Arbcom involvement. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC) From the BLP template at the top: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page" I knew I'd read that somewhere. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC) I think we should find a way to incorporate A Summary Of The Gamergate Movement That We Will Immediately Change If Any Of Its Members Find Any Details Objectionable. Just trying to lighten the mood a bit. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC) If we loosen the criteria for RS, should we include this? The War for the Soul of Geek Culture? Or When they laughed at rape? - this is after all academics talking about Gamergate. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

In point of fact, I see no bar to using Salon When they laughed at rape: Salon is a reliable source and we currently use Slate; Slate was started in emulation of Salon. The MoviePilot essay is written by the "editor in chief" of MoviePilot, which certainly appears to have regular staff; the site accepts user-contributed material but this is clearly marked as written by the editor in chief and so might be a reliable source as well, and certainly is reliable for her opinion or the opinion of the organization. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

My concern would be adding too much opinion. The facts are better covered by less opinion oriented pieces. IMO. But if we are adding more opinions, these should be added. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

A discussion/statement of the Article about finding an objective viewpoint

Pardon me for intruding, but all I ask is that if my statement here are considered wrong or right and somewhat on the topic of GamerGate to end or begin several points of discussion.

• Wikipedia does not search for "a" truth, but for the most known part based on what reliable sources have to say and to what extent on how many people have heard of it? Example: 1 person publishes "a" truth on inside information (unreliable source for now) and/or creation of said "statement". Then a media outlet that published said "truth" says a "version" of said truth to 100 people, even if they have mistranslated or generalized it to an extent that it has become a "lie" to the first "truth" or become a "Half-truth". The statemenet in question leads to this. The source that gave perspective to 100 people would be what Wikipedia would write due to it being a reliable source outlet to the most spread of people even if based on a "change" from the first "truth"? Would this be a form of input for Wikipedia? (This example is based/inspired bye a study )

If said statement is "true", then GamerGate controversy article in itself cannot change to what it is now unless further weighted reliable sources bring out statistics of another "truth" or using other figureheads of GamerGate members within the controversy and/or GamerGate "sources" that are controversial to the public. This is a deadlock for any change until further newsite prints.
If said statement is "false", would the people in Gaming Journalism not be highly weighted due to their insight and knowledge of every side of the GamerGate Controversy? Even if using only the controversial "side" sources of Gaming Journalism or other source to follow the article's focus of solely controversy such as SupaNova 1 2? TheRealVordox (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the reliably published sources and presents those perceptions of the subject in the relative proportions they are held. WP:UNDUE and WP:RS. With regard to gamergate, the overwhelming perception is of harassment and terrorist threats and a culture war against women and feminists. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

...in the sources you've chosen. If we look at the sources above plus sources we're not using (we could absolutely use The Escapist more, for example), that "overwhelming perception" becomes something more akin to "disproportionate coverage." Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

there are multiple sources of at least the same quality as Escapist that provide much more scathing views of gamergate that we can include as well. (and some sort of evidence of this conspiracy of misreporting by the major media would be nice too.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Who said conspiracy? And yes, an article with some of those "scathing views" would be preferable to what we have now as well, given the disproportionate attention to other issues of smaller relationship. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

you do not use the word "conspiracy" but you keep asserting that all of the mainstream media has colluded or simultaneously failed their in their journalistic duties without any evidence at all. thats a conspiracy theory. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have not once asserted collusion. I do think the media is not being responsible, and the evidence is how the coverage of the topic is not reflective of what's going on. This is not about me, stick to the actual topic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Basically: Tough nuts to you. Your personal opinions about how the media shouldbe covering this are not worth a pile of wet beans. We follow what HAS been covered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Good, so let's cover it in context, and let's use sources that reflect what is happening, not sources that confirm our biases. Telling another editor "tough nuts" is not going to improve the article, actual collaboration on what we can do to improve the state of things here is. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggest some specific edits that use the existing sources. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

We're clearly not at that point yet. Want to work with me on it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As I don't think there's anything to fix, unless you point them out, I won't see anything to work on. But the RS are ok? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Right now, the article violates NPOV by providing a skewed, incorrect coverage of the situation, and you're not seeing any problems? The sources are okay in some places, not in others. We have a good list to start with to help with expanding out what Gamergate actually believes, which would be an excellent starting point if you're actually on board with helping me on it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with ForbiddenRocky. These ideological conversations about how GamerGate ought to be covered by reliable sources goes nowhere but it does seem to be endless.

The solution has been proposed over and over again for anyone who is not content with this article, in any way: Suggest an edit and provide a source that can be used to back up the statement. That's all! Once we have something specific, we can discuss whether that source is reliable for that statement. But these vague criticisms without concrete suggestions are not an effective way of influencing the editing of this article and it turns this talk page into a discussion forum debating what is truth!

It reminds me of GamerGate which refuses to have leadership and then complains that it is not being treated as a movement or that the media is not taking it seriously...but that is because when everyone speaks for an event, no one can be singled as having an authoritative voice and represent the group. If its supporters had even a minimal level of recognized organization, this would be a very different article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Right now, the article does not violate NPOV. It provides a (reasonably) balanced view, reflecting the preponderant view of reliable sources. Replacing The New Yorker with The Escapist is not likely to be a popular or permissible strategy. Neither WP:BLP nor WP:RS will be relaxed. Indefinite vague attacks on the article are not actionable. If you have a specific proposal, please propose it. If not, what is the purpose of these thousands of words? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources agree: Gamergate’s notable effects are its misogynistic attacks on women and computing. Whether or not an editor considers the media to be responsible is no more relevant to this discussion than whether that editor considers anchovies to be tasty or thinks meats with sauce Robert to be best with a New Zealand Shiraz. When The New Yorker publishes a profile that reflects new accomplishments of Gamergate, we'll take a look; until then, the endless quest to “balance” the New York Times, The New Yorker, The Guardian, and numerous additional sources of the very first quality by scouring the margins of reliable sources for an isolated dissent or two is pointless and also deeply inimical to the purpose and reputation of the project. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Here's Why the Lead Sucks

(before we begin I want to apologize for the length of this comment -- brevity has never been a strength of mine)

The first sentence is objectively terrible. I don’t know how it got this way, but it needs some serious attention. The entire lead is bad, sure, but the first sentence is particularly rotten.

For starters, the concept of an anonymous, leaderless movement is not new or unique. I mean hell, look at that, there’s an entire article dedicated to the idea. And yet everyone who has touched the lead has been flummoxed when attempting to succinctly describe Gamergate in a balanced fashion. So rather than attempt to describe Gamergate, the lead immediately engages and defines Gamergate as "a controversy regarding sexism." How on earth is that describing anything? It's doing nothing but begging the question. Gamergate is not the name of the controversy -- it is the name of the hashtag attached to the self-described consumer movement that became immediately controversial when it was associated with a campaign of harassment against several individuals in the video game industry. Describing it as "a controversy regarding sexism" is akin to describing Watergate as: "a political scandal regarding the Nixon administration's attempted cover-up of its involvement in the scandal." Do you see anthing missing?

"Regarding" is also a terrible, ambiguous, ridiculously-passive word choice. Behold, another poorly re-written lead in the style of the Gamergate article: "The Westboro Baptist Church is a controversy regarding homophobia in American culture." It's terrible writing and you should all be ashamed.

I'm joking. I love you all. Seriously. The "History" section is actually very well written, as is most of the meat of the article. The lead just does a terrible job of introducing and summarizing the article content, which is its ONE job.

Here’s how I propose we fix it: we must identify and define Gamergate in the opening sentence. I know it's possible, because pretty much every journalist who has written about Gamergate has managed to do so.

Those reliable sources seem to agree that Adam Baldwin coined the name Gamergate on twitter when he tweeted links to two YouTube videos posted by the user InternetAristocrat. I will pick that as the jumping-off point for the term Gamergate (you could start with the harassment of Saarkesian and Quinn or the so-called Zoe Post, but I'll focus on the inception of the hashtag since this article relates primarily to the hashtag and its resulting controversy rather than the individuals going into detail about the individuals being harassed). Admittedly I have not watched the videos linked in the initial tweet (they’ve been removed), though I have seen them described in reliable sources, and while they were undoubtedly sexist in tone the videos were described as having little to do with "sexism in video game culture." The sources describe the videos as being critical of the progressive voice of the video game press. The videos also apparently discussed alleged ethical violations following the disclosure of a relationship between designer Zoe Quinn and video game journalist Nathan Grayson. In my mind, at least initially, Gamergate was engaging equally in both sexism (its criticism of the progressive voice of the gaming press and the harassing elements) and ethics (concerns over the Quinn/Grayson relationship).

Moving on. To answer a frequently asked question: Do the reliable sources describe Gamergate as a "movement?" The answer: Absolutely. Gamergate is described primarily as a movement in nearly every source I reviewed. I can post a long list of quotes if you like, but instead I would invite you to pick any article from my list of 20 highly-reliable sources about Gamergate, CTRL-F the word "movement", and read. Movement is used a total of 55 times in all of those articles (for those that are curious, "controversy" is used 16 times, "sexism" 20 times; "misogyny" 31 times; "campaign" 36 times, "ethics" 43 times; "culture" 51 times; "harass" 68 times) so you should have plenty to choose from. Further, describing something as a movement is not a value judgment in any way. Movement is a neutral word, attributed to both terrible things and positive things. Movements do not require leaders, a specific goal, or the ability to identify supporters. The only requirement is to have "a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas." Or maybe "a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal." Gamergate easily fits those two definitions, as is evidenced by word being used in numerous reliable sources. Okay, fine. Here are two examples:

• "Columbia Journalism Review "At core, the movement is a classic culture war."

• "The Guardian But this may not be the case for '#gamergate', an online movement started in August as a harassment campaign against a little-known indie game developer which has now widened to include nearly all games industry feminists as its target."

Another question: is the Gamergate movement ever described as being interested in ethics by the reliable sources? I will only select a handful of sources, but of the 20 sources I identified earlier, nearly every one used the concept of "ethics" when describing the movement, albeit often with heavy qualification:

• Christian Science Monitor "Whether the crux of Gamergate is ethics in video game journalism or misogyny among gamers continues to spark heated debate online."

• Washington Post "Last week, I wrote about the Entertainment Software Association's reaction to 'Gamergate' -- the months-long culture war over gender and ethics in the gaming industry."

• The New Yorker "The Gamergate hashtag has been used more than a million times on Twitter, for myriad purposes. Some denounce harassment but consider the tag a demand for better ethical practices in video-game journalism, including more objective reporting and a removal of politics from criticism. (Never mind that Gamergate itself is awash in politics). Critics see Gamergate as a hate movement, born of extremists, which has grown by providing a sense of belonging, self-worth, and direction to those experiencing crisis or disaffection."

• New York Times "The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage."

• Time "Their inquiry, passed around Twitter under the deeply sincere hashtag '#GamerGate', alleges that writing op-eds about colleagues and peers is unethical, that a list of people who attended an academic conference together is proof of a conspiracy, and that any critic who pursues creators and projects that interest them is cynically promoting their friends. Some of them admit they’re afraid that "social justice warriors" will ruin video games."

These sources all touch on both aspects of Gamergate when defining it -- a self-described consumer movement (by proponents) or a sexist harassment campaign (by critics). By presenting only one definition, it's not only a misuse of reliable sources, it demonstrates blatant disregard to any semblance of neutrality. The ethical aspect cannot be considered undue if it is covered in nearly every single reliable source. In fact, I would argue that it is undue to specifically exclude that facet of the controversy in the lead.

Now let's discuss the word "controversy." In order to have a controversy, one must describe the involved parties. To use the example of two better-written opening sentences, the MMR vaccine controversy "centers on the 1998 publication of a fraudulent research paper in the medical journal The Lancet." Or the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy "began after the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 editorial cartoons on 30 September 2005, most of which depicted Muhammad."

Now, let’s rewrite those leads in the terrible fashion deployed in the Gamergate article. "The MMR vaccine controversy is a controversy related to fraud in medical research." Or "The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy is a certain thing centering on being vaguely reminiscent and tangentially related to the general concepts surrounding the ideas expressed in the notions of censorship, religious tolerance, blasphemy, and freedom of speech in culture." Hopefully you get the idea.

Of course one aspect that I need to respect is the idea that Gamergate is largely responsible for the harassing, doxxing, swatting, misogynying and hurt feelings happening to those involved in the controversy, because that’s what the reliable sources say. I understand that the bulk of the reliable sources have been deeply critical of Gamergate, but I think we can still reflect the critical tone in the opening sentence while actually providing useful summarizing information to the reader.

But I’m not here to moan and complain and stamp my feet. No sir (or madam), I’m here to build a goddamn encyclopedia, damn you all, so I want to attempt to find consensus and fix this awful lead in a way that will make absolutely everyone happy, which is a completely realistic and attainable goal. Right? Heck yeah. Let’s do this shit.

Here are a few alternatives I wrote to get the ball rolling. Not to brag or anything, but I think they’re all better than that steaming pile of crap currently leading the article:

1. Gamergate is a consumer movement that has been associated with threats and harassment directed at several women in the video game industry, igniting what has been described as a "classic culture war." (put CJR reference here, OH NO!)
2. Gamergate is a controversial hashtag movement that gained significant attention and notoriety after several women in the video game industry were harassed and threatened by Gamergate supporters.
3. The Gamergate controversy describes the threats and harassment directed at several women in the video game industry, coordinated and perpetrated by members of a self-described consumer movement operating under the hashtag #Gamergate.

I mean, the lead will probably have to be rewritten entirely, but I wanted to take the baby step of just addressing the first awful sentence that has remained relatively unchanged for months. Can we at least all agree that it's terrible in its present state? Or do some of you actually like it? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

100% agree. I realize I am new to this page, but the opening sentence is what brought me here in the first place. The lead *is* terrible. I have yet to find *anyone* (reliable sources, wikipedia editors, bloggers, journalists, op-ed's) refer to Gamergate as a "controversy". As I mentioned before, it reflects poorly on wikipedia. I think the problem is so may editors here have been working on the article for so long, they refuse to take a step back and look at things objectively. I suggested a change to the opening sentence and the discussion was immediately hatted. I don't understand why. In any event, I think "controversial movement" is accurate, reflected in Reliable Sources, and notable. Marcos12 (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Deja vue all over all over again! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Didn't we just close a thing about movement? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the lead sentence is fine. But at the very least write a new sentence, and then see how that goes. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Consumer movement - Majority RS do not support this ForbiddenRocky (talk)

WP:NOTFORUM, off-topic. Dreadstar ☥ 19:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Also, "steaming pile of crap" etc. is not very civil. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I can call a sentence any number of horrible things, because the sentence is not a person. Reading this policy page might help you understand. WP:CIVIL. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and accuse that sentence of murdering my parents, because it might as well have done so. That's how terrible it is. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Previous consensus on not calling it a movement. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC) here's the previous consensus before that one. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I just don't understand the editors here. Just because this article has been around since September and there are dozens of pages of archives, we have new editors participating every day. Consider the evidence and the argument presented, don't just shut it down. Here the editor out, stop thinking in terms of us vs. them or "the enemy". People in good faith could have valid suggestions about changing the lead and I think they should be considered without suspecting them of ulterior motives or just dismissing them because a similar argument occurred in the past.

And it's a red herring to say a conversation on this was just closed, there was an RfC about a requested move than voted not to move the article and change the title, that's not what the OP is suggesting at all. Are the points of view here so entrenched that reasonable requests to revisit sections of the article can't be considered? Wikipedia is not written on stone tablets and, at some point, the lead will be rewritten in the future. Why not try to improve it rather than holding fast to a section that is seriously considered lacking and NPOV by a large number of editors and readers? I'm just talking about revision here, not a revolution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well said. Given the repeated arrival of readers with similar concerns we have to ask ourselves whether we're writing this article for the handful of editors familiar with the "million words of talk page discussion", to whom the article makes perfect sense, or the rest of the public to whom it apparently does not? I'd think that if for whatever reason we're unable to write an article that informs the uninformed the encyclopedia would be better with no article at all. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• object unless someone can summarize a specific concrete proposal for change, this section is little more than stale talking past each other. Hipocrite (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hipocrite:Hmm. This makes me think that perhaps you didn't read my original comment in its entirety, particularly the part where I wrote three alternative opening sentences. I don't think it gets more concrete than that. I think the third one in particular is the best. What do you think? I don't think a bolded "object" is a particularly concrete comment, as it's not entirely clear what you're objecting to. Are you objecting to further discussion? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I point to previous consensus to point out that there are already arguments against this change from only a week ago. Many of the arguments are the same ones from last week and the one before. New evidence is evaluated all the time here. But some of these arguments are old old old. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@ColorOfSuffering:: the "movement" itself is the subject of very few articles, if any. Virtually all reliable sources are about the events and people involved. In short, the controversy. You mentioned the Watergate scandal, which is an apt analogy. That article is virtually all about the events and people: the scandal. Keep in mind that there wasn't a Watergate "movement", just some people dubbed the "Watergate Seven", which we happen to have an article on only because they were caught and subsequently received widespread coverage in the press. On the other hand, sources struggle to define the Gamergate movement. They can't point to anyone responsible. And they can't point to any official goals or statements, other than "this person who claims to be a supporter said X". And yes, that comes with "heavy qualification", because reliable sources find those goals and statements to be misplaced and diversionary. To make a long story short (too late), per UNDUE we won't be rewriting the article to highlight something that reliable sources overwhelmingly dismiss. Woodroar (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Woodroar:I respectfully disagree. The movement is the subject of many articles, and it is discussed at length in most of the articles I have read. This is very similar to the Westboro Baptist Church. The church is only notable for picketing funerals (in the same way that Gamergate is only notable for the harassment and threats), and yet we still acknowledge that it is a church, and many articles have been written about the church. Here are a few examples of articles written about Gamergate: [5][6][7]. To your other points, I used Watergate not as a parallel to the article, but to point out how rotten the lead is. Watergate was about the attempted burglary and the coverup by the Nixon administration. But if you leave out the part about the burglary, all you have is the coverup of a thing that was never defined. That's what's happening in the current Gamergate lead. There's a controversy, but the subjects of the controversy are never mentioned, so all the reader has is a vague notion that video games and sexism is involved. As I mentioned in my original post, it's begging the question. Hard. And sources do not struggle to define the Gamergate movement. Every article does it, and most of the good sources do it well. And as I mentioned, it's not undue to discuss something (ethics) that is mentioned in the lead of nearly every single article written on the topic. Even if it's "dismissed" (I don't agree with that characterization, but that's another discussion) the aspect is covered extensively; to the point that it's intrinsic to the story. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't agree with most of what you said in this post, but I think the 3rd alternative is a good, descriptive rewrite and would support that change. Kaciemonster (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

We just had this discussion (twice, if you count the move request that pretty much died under WP:SNOW.) I'll repeat some of what I said there: Going over the article's sources, there are a lot that don't cover the subject, in particular, as a movement, including here, here, here, here, here, and here, just to start. And this one describes it as a 'movement' in scare quotes, showing that they find the descriptor controversial. Many of them cover it as a hashtag, as a mob, as an event, and so on, while many others emphasize that they have trouble categorizing it or describing exactly what it is. I feel that 'controversy' adequately unifies all of this coverage without discarding any of it, while trying to make it universally a 'movement' within article text would implicitly downplay the sources I linked and many like them (many of which are some of the highest-quality sources we have in the article, in terms of both WP:RS and prominence.) Though I dislike rigidly dividing sources up according to this distinction, even the sources that I would roughly characterize as 'favorable' to Gamergate clearly seem to characterize it as a controversy (describing it as an issue with two sides, or as an ongoing culture war, or in similar terms.) Beyond that, I would point out that the current lead is the result of extensive discussions and consensus-building by a huge number of people; while consensus can change, I feel that the current lead is very well-written and generally does an excellent job of giving a quick overview for a complicated and often controversial subject, and I don't agree with your broad criticisms of it -- it reflects the coverage of the subject in proportion to its prominence in reliable sources; it's important to understand that we have to weight our coverage based on that. And, finally, it is important to understand that an article's lead must reflect the rest of the article; the current lead does that, while I don't think any of your suggestions would work. --Aquillion (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Aquillion:This is great! Seriously, I'm glad you posted links, because I agree. There are a few articles that specifically do not describe Gamergate as a "movement." Many of those articles were written in September, before the notion of calling it a "movement" was generally accepted. But I see your 6 references (though I'm not too impressed with the Daily Beast article) and raise you 11 references from highly reliable sources (no Daily Beasts in the mix) that specifically call it a "movement." [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] So that's 15 from me calling it a movement. Is that still not convincing? At least you'll have to agree that there is no definitive answer to that question. Further, very few sources describe Gamergate as a "controversy." In fact, I can only find three -- [23][24][25] (and even those article still use the descriptor "movement" in the article space). I agree that controversy is the appropriate article title, and would never in a million years suggest we rename it. However, according to the reliable sources I have posted for you, the Gamergate movement is one of the subjects involved in the controversy -- it is not just the name of the controversy. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

And I would encourage you to look at other controversies to see how those leads are written, because some of them are quite good. They identify the parties of the controversy and explain the dispute. The lead sentence in the Gamergate article is currently so vague that it's almost useless, as I hopefully pointed out in the examples from my original comment. "controversy regarding sexism in video game culture" tells us nothing about the article content, and it does not reflect the vast majority of reliable sources. Plus, it's basically one long Wikilink for the Sexism in video gaming article. If I wanted to read about sexism in video games (and I really do) then I'd go to that article. But I've come to this article to read about the Gamergate controversy. According to the reliable sources, Gamergate is primarily about two things (depending on who you ask): harassment and/or ethics. The fact that neither of those things are mentioned in the opening sentence is just outright madness. The fact that the Gamergate movement isn't named in the opening sentence is also madness. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you "identify" a group of anonymous internet trolls other than calling them a group of anonymous internet trolls? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

An excellent question. My suggestions is that you go to the reliable sources and see how they defined Gamergate. For example, very few of them use the definition of "anonymous internet trolls" to define Gamergate. This one is my favorite, and seems to do a good job of summarizing the movement from some fish-wrapper called the New York Times: "It's a debate about a lot of things and it involves a lot of people, but at its heart, #Gamergate is about two key things: ethics in video game journalism, and the role and treatment of women in the video game industry — an industry that has long been dominated by men.". There are many more to choose from. What source do you use to reach your "anonymous internet trolls" definition? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Or we can use absolutely horrible or incontrovertibly awful or hordes of misogynists ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course you can! If you can justify why the International Business Times, Metro, and Market for Home Computing and Video Games are more reliable sources than the Washington Post, New York Times, The Guardian, and LA Times, and the Boston Globe. I'm more than happy to have that discussion. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think you should read some of the links you posted in more detail! From the last one, for example: "Still, at least one zealous group has formed a nascent Twitter movement to combat what is seen as the increased cultural criticism being applied to video games. It should be noted that the word “movement” is used loosely, as it’s not quite clear what those tweeting with the Gamergate hashtag are after, other than an end to all serious critiques of video games." Many other sources say similar things, making it clear that the designation is indeed controversial and that most journalists struggle to determine how exactly to frame the controversy. (eg. the NewsWeek analysis says "The movement, insofar as a group of people obsessively complaining about something on Twitter deserves to be called a movement"; the fastcodesign analysis says "Gamergate is many different things to many different people, but at its core it is a vicious battle over the future of gaming,"; the CBJ analysis describes it with many different quotes from different people.) These -- unlike the links you grabbed where they use the word in passing -- are actual analysis of what Gamergate is and what it's about, and they almost all agree that it is hard to define beyond it being a huge angry conflict. Even you seem uncertain about how to frame it; I notice that above, you referred to it as a consumer movement, which is absolutely not reflected in your sources -- almost no reliable sources describe it in those terms. I feel that if we tried to identify it precisely we would inevitably end up imposing such personal judgments on what the controversy is really about, which don't reflect the overarching thrust of reliable coverage. We do cover this confusion in depth in the article (which does use the term 'movement' in a few places, where appropriate), but I think that the sources we've collected here make it clear that it would be inappropriate to try and force the use of the term in the lead, to frame the entire subject as "obviously" about a cohesive movement, or to try and divide it up into this-view-vs-that-view. The majority of this reliable coverage (and, indeed, most of the links you provided) therefore seems to me to be covered better by the current lead. --Aquillion (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree! And thank you for reading that dump of sources I gave you. They don't all say the same thing, naturally, and there's quite a lot of disagreement among the sources as to how to properly represent Gamergate. But for the purposes of the lead rewrite there are two things I'm trying to prove -- Gamergate is considered a movement, and Gamergate self-identifies as a "consumer movement" (or some variation thereof). We can cherrypick examples from what I posted, but you must have seen at least some sources calling it a "movement" without judgement or qualification, yes? Maybe you didn't. I can post some of those when I have some more time. Either way, we've had a lovely discussion about this, and I thank you being so civil and reasonable in this discussion. Here's my question: in what way do you think "a controversy regarding sexism in video game culture" does even a remotely decent job of summarizing the article content? It's not a summary at all, it's a vague allusion to the existence of a controversy, which is fairly self-evident insomuch as the article exists. Can't we do a better job? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

except that you have to cherry pick the some of gamergate that identify as consumer anything. some have quite specifically identified themselves by their actions as misogynist trolls. some have identified as "but ethics!" some have identified as "they said bad stuff about us - lets shut them down" some have identified as "No feminazi girls are gonna tell me what i can play" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think the sources you linked (in terms of how they use the term 'movement' and how they characterize its origins, purpose, and goals, to the limited extent that they can) are already addressed in the lead, which goes on to say that "These attacks, initially performed under the Twitter hashtag #gamergate, were later variously coordinated in the online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in an anonymous and amorphous movement." What you're trying to say here is that you want to characterize what type of movement it is (you believe that you know how Gamergate self-identifies, and want to put this in the article.) However, we have to base our coverage on reliable sources, which generally don't describe it in that manner, and which don't even seem to agree with you that Gamergate defines itself as a consumer movement. We have many more sources defining it as based around cultural warfare, I think. --Aquillion (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In response to: "Can we at least all agree that it's terrible in its present state? Or do some of you actually like it?" I'm a big fan of the lede! I'm impressed with the editors who have brought it to its current state in what has occasionally been a very adversarial environment. I don't think any of the proposals you have to change the lede reflect our article, and the primary goal of the lede is to summarise the article's content, so I'd oppose your suggestions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I reverted GeorgeLouis's lede change. I don't think it reflects the article at all, and seems to be attempting to severely downplay the significance of the harassment Gamergate has inflicted on people (e.g. changing "sustained campaign of misogynistic attacks" to "harassed and threatened in online postings".) I'll paraphrase my comments on the previous discussion we had about moving it from controversy to movement- without leaders, goals, or any organisational structure, we can't call it a movement. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that call the controversy a "sustained campaign of misogynistic attacks?" That sounds a bit like synthesis to me, but I could be mistaken. Because I have many sources that say the subjects were harassed and threatened in online postings. Here's a random one from the Los Angeles Times: The hateful social media posts, a number of them threatening rape and crippling injury, have been so violent that some intended targets have gone into hiding. Your turn. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeesh. We're on the same team here, buddy. I thought it was pretty commonly accepted that the lede exists to summarise the article below it- we're not going to be summarising very well if we have to perfectly quote articles from our RS's for everything- it's enough to paraphrase in this occasion I'd say. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's also supported by Heron, Belford and Goker which write that it is "misogynist backlash" and a "sustained campaign of gendered harassment". — Strongjam (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

We're on the same team? I didn't know we had teams. Honestly, I think that's part of the problem in editing this article -- that battleground mentality pointed out in the ArbCom where editors picked sides. I have no side. And while the ACM is a lovely organization, I certainly think their findings (which I cannot access at the moment so I can't see the full context) are as reliable as the links I posted earlier from the Washington Post That may surprise those who've seen coverage of the controversy only in relation to violent threats sent to Sarkeesian and to game developers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu after they weighed in on the issue. and the New York Times The threats against Ms. Sarkeesian are the most noxious example of a weekslong campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry and its culture. Heron, Belford and Goker are three voices among many. My point in bringing up the sources is that you cannot demand sources to explicitly state a certain thing (Gamergate is a consumer movement) then turn around and say that we don't need to "perfectly quote" from our reliable sources to say another thing (it's a sustained campaign of misogynistic harassment). ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm on the side that wants to build an educational wikipedia article- call it a figure of speech if you must. Are you confusing me with somebody else? I don't believe I've stated what you're attributing to me- I may have said in the past that our sources don't reflect Gamergate being a consumer movement in the past, but I'd absolutely endorse the idea that our sources reflect that Gamergate is a sustained campaign of misogynistic harassment. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, snap, then we are the on the same team. GO TEAM! And the "consumer movement" issue was actually brought up by different user in this thread, but my response was more addressing the idea you posited for finding "perfectly quote" to fit the lead. Since we're on the same team, I would point out that your reasoning aligns with my reasoning that we should define Gamergate as a consumer movement, or at the very least a "movement." I would say ethical movement, but a different movement already claimed that one. One of my favorite quotes is from the Washington Post, that describes the movement thusly: "But if there's one thing I've learned about Gamergate in the past week, it's this: It's complicated. Gamergate, in some ways, brings to mind two other recent mass movements -- the tea party and Occupy Wall Street. Supporters see it as a consumer movement that's also, essentially, leaderless. That means, they said, that more rational voices who want to talk about ethics in journalism have been drowned out by people sending loud, undeniably hateful speech in an Internet echo chamber that rewards sensationalism." It's a perfect summation of Gamergate's positions in a well-respected reliable source, and it draws comparisons to other recent social movements. Certainly the idea that "it's complicated" is reason enough to 86 a vague, poorly-worded sentence that is 50% Wikilink to the Sexism in video gaming article. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's the point where I'd ordinarily quit appealing to your common sense and go to the trouble of finding a few of the many, many sources which correctly describe Gamergate as nothing more than a bunch of women-hating nerds angry, desperate howl to a culture which is changing and leaving them behind, but Strongjam's kindly found a few examples for me. Cheers, Strongjam. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

No need. There's another discussion in this thread where I posted 15 reliable sources that describe the movement as far more than a bunch of women-hating angry nerds. I would love to have a discussion about the proper use of reliable sources rather than having anyone appeal to my common sense, which is not nearly as reliable. It's up there in an exchange with the wonderful editor named Aquillion. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

(e/c)There are many sources that have discredited the idea that there is "consumer" anything - and the only sources that ever did use that terminology placed the attribution firmly as some people using GG hashtag were attempting to position itself as. There are no sources that discredit the idea that what has been relevant is the sustained harassment - that is what virtually all of the coverage has focused intensely on. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well naturally. I don't think you're asking the correct question, though. Nearly every source does indeed discredit the Gamergate ethics narrative, but that's not the issue. The sources state that Gamergate considers themselves to be concerned about ethics (hence, consumer movement). Whether or not they actually are a consumer movement is irrelevant. I used the words "self-described consumer movement" in my third lead choice, which I think would be reflected by the sources. See the above quote from the Washington Post that defends the self-described consumer movement definition. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

per WP:UNDUE that lone out in left field view of themselves is not what is presented as fact in the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting notion, that we should not report on how a group identifies itself in spite of the fact that nearly every reliable source reports on how the group identifies itself. How do you propose we identify the parties in the controversy? Seems every other controversy article in Wikipedia immediately identifies the subjects of the controversy in the opening sentence, why not this one too? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

other groups are actual groups with leaders and spokespeople and official manifestos and websites where they post their mission etc etc. gamergate has none of these. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

They do have an inofficial one, however it's not a reliable source but more of their gathered information like Wikipedia. It's connected to their Reddit forum KotakuInAction. It does show their current ongoing goals.TheRealVordox (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

that site to which you refer only represents those that made it, it is about as inofficial as you could get. you can see how much credence "groups" with only inofficial everything are treated by reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, highly unreliable source, nature of the movement and how it works. TheRealVordox (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there are very many sources defining it as a consumer movement; that has a number of implications that aren't present in the coverage. (eg. some sources describe it as a movement fundamentally centered around culture warfare against what they see as ideological opponents, or opposing the diversification of gaming, or fighting the progressive slant of the media, or opposing feminism, or countless other things.) And this cuts to the core of the problem with your suggestion; you feel that you have definitely, clearly identified what Gamergate is, and have done a lot of original research in collecting articles where they use this or that word to prove it, but most of the in-depth coverage -- sources that have gone into detail on what it is and tried to analyze it at length -- do not agree. I particularly disagree with your assertion that this is definitely, clearly "how the group identifies itself"; that is not clear at all (eg. Nathaniel Givens and Adam Baldwin -- who seem to consider themselves part of it -- are outspoken about the fact that Gamergate is a cultural movement focused on opposing leftism and progressivism.) This confusion over what it is and what it wants is present in almost all reliable sources; for that reason, it is better for us to avoid sweeping declarations in the lead unless they are clearly supported throughout the article text. I feel that the current lead does a good job of confining itself to statements that are heavily-supported in reliable sources and throughout the article; I don't think that your proposed changes would improve it. --Aquillion (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I actually prefer the term "culture war" to "controversy regarding sexism." I think I used that language in my first option of the alternative leads I proposed, but it was clouded up by people protesting the idea that Gamergate is considered a movement. Culture war is far more descriptive than "regarding sexism in video game culture." And I think the current opening sentence places too much weight on sexism (which is a pretty vague and open-ended word) and not enough on the harassment and threats, which is the real meat of the controversy. This is all quite helpful, and I think a more descriptive leading sentence is somewhere in the middle. I just need to take a step back from responding to all of these Talk Page comments to try to find it. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. The current lede should be modified. I like your second suggestion. Pollinosisss (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in everyone. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we rename this article "Gamergate movement." That was the recently closed RFC, and while I didn't comment there, I understand that there is consensus against renaming the article. What I am calling for is a rewrite of the lead, which is objectively terrible (as evidenced by the influx of new editors coming to the page complaining about the lead). So with all due respect, no, you did not just have this discussion. And that doesn't matter anyway. Further, saying things such as "we've been over this a billion times" is not terribly helpful. Focusing on the fact that I wanted to define Gamergate as a "movement" in the article space is one small aspect of the comment I left. I wanted to define it as a movement, because every reliable source defines it as a movement. I do not want to change the article name, because while Gamergate is a movement, the movement is only notable because of the controversy. Hence, the article name. Now I'm going to try to respond to the points raised, but I'm going to cut this one off because I'm anticipating an edit conflict, and I write horribly slowly. Again, I thank you all for your helpful feedback. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not terribly helpful to restart conversations that have been held a billion times with no new slew of sources to support a policy and source based change of coverage. WP:V / WP;UNDUE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"no new slew of sources". SPIT TAKE! Sorry. Let me just point you to this comment I left.[26] Nearly every comment I have made today has been backed by reliable sources. What I think is truly not helpful is the dismissive hand-waving that does nothing to address the issues I have brought forth. If you have a problem with the reliability of the sources that I have listed, then by all means let me have it. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually there are numerous,reliable, current sources describing Gamergate as a "movement". Please see above for a detailed list (Time Magazine, WSJ, Washington Post to name a few) Marcos12 (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of those sources don't discuss what it is in any depth. The ones that do (as I pointed out above) almost universally come to the conclusion that it is large, complicated, controversial, and that the one thing everyone agrees on is that it is a loud angry shouting argument. This uncertainty about what it is and what the people behind it want is covered, in depth, in the article itself, which the lead must reflect; building a list of every time a source has used the term 'movement' in passing is not a substitute for that kind of in-depth coverage (and, indeed, using that alone to say "it is definitely a movement!" would be WP:OR, especially given that most of the sources that go into depth on it make note of its hard-to-define character.) Of course I'm not suggesting that we banish the term from the article; but I don't feel that collecting a bunch of offhand uses of the word is sufficient to justify defining it as such in the lead when so many sources that go into detail on the topic agree that it lacks clear definition. In fact, the current lead does mention that the initial attacks on Quinn eventually formed into '... anonymous and amorphous movement', which I feel adequately represents the sources you're discussing. What else would you want to add beyond that? --Aquillion (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• I said this twice above, but I think it's core enough to the discussion to deserve its own section: The current lead does already say that "These attacks, initially performed under the Twitter hashtag #gamergate, were later variously coordinated in the online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in an anonymous and amorphous movement." This, I think, answers all the sources you have above. If I understand your concerns correctly (there's been a lot of things said!), you don't feel that this description accurately represents either the 'movement', such as it is, or its origins, or its purpose; but we have to base our coverage on reliable sources, in proportion to the weight given by those sources, and most of them describe it in that manner. You claim that we're not presenting the crux of the controversy, but according to most reliable sources, that is the crux of the controversy. We do go on to discuss, elsewhere in the lead, the various other aspects that different sources have commented on, but at heart we cannot substitute an editor's personal opinions about what Gamergate is 'really' about for the coverage in reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, this is not my personal opinion. I'm working from a list of 20 articles that discuss the entirety of Gamergate, and I'll post how each article has defined the movement/campaign/controversy/hashtag. You'll notice that I'm posting some definitions that agree with you, and some that agree with me. I'm doing this to show that I'm not trying to push a POV, but merely trying to represent how this controversy has been covered:

Damn, actually now that I look at it, "man-baby jamboree" is by far the best definition I've seen. Is there any way we can slip that into the lead? "Gamergate is a man-baby jamboree that is responsible for all sexism in video game culture." Something like that. Anyway, what I'm trying to point out by posting these is that the journalists seems to agree that Gamergate is about one thing: harassment dressed up as concerns about ethics. This is the two aspect of the story. I use Westboro Baptist Church as an example of a group who thinks they are doing one thing, but they're actually doing another. Most commentators don't consider WBC to be a church at all, but rather a family, or a hate group. But the fact that WBC calls themselves a church is a given, and it's stated (appropriately) in the leading sentence of the Westboro Baptist Church Wikipedia article. The same can be said for this Gamergate article. They call themselves a consumer movement in the same way that the WBC calls themselves a church. But once we, in Wikipedia's voice, say that the WBC is not a church, we are engaging in the controversy, which is generally discouraged. I'm going to go offline for a bit, and by all means talk amongst yourselves, but I'll try to gather all of the feedback and compose an opening sentence that I feel is more informative than the current version and post it when I get the chance. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the comparison to WBC is that WBC has an organization to speak for them. "GamerGate" is anyone who wants to tweet a hashtag. — Strongjam (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, I don't see any sources in the WBC article denying that it is a church; in fact, our article on the WBC, when it discusses what it is and what it believes, primarily cites reputable scholars and journalists who have analyzed and discussed the topic, just like our Gamergate article does -- we describe it as a church because they agree that it is a church. When it is cited for anything of importance in the article, that cite is always coupled with a reputable second-party source backing up the relevance of the quote or viewpoint expressed; we never just take the WBC at face-value. Likewise, our current article quotes people involved in the controversy (like Baldwin), but never just uses them to describe the topic, since that wouldn't be an encyclopedic way to cover it. I've seen several people make the comparison between our WBC and Gamergate articles, but I think it's clear that first, the two handle their topics in essentially identical ways; and second, the Gamergate article (due to the attention it has received) has overall higher quality sourcing. I don't see any particular argument in that comparison that would support changing this article's lead in the way you are suggesting, nor do I see anything in the sources you cited that isn't adequately covered in the current article or the current lead. --Aquillion (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The list of sources above doesn't seem to back what the change you're trying to make (that is, they primarily match the "These attacks, initially performed under the Twitter hashtag #gamergate, were later variously coordinated in the online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in an anonymous and amorphous movement" description in the current lead, especially when they trace Gamergate's history.) I will reiterate that even in describing Gamergate as "an organization that thinks it is doing one thing...", you are expressing your own personal point of view and not one (as far as I can tell) that you have cited to any reputable sources -- that isn't what the majority of the sources you're citing say, in other words. In fact, many of the sources in the article (and even the ones you posted above) are clear in saying that there are people involved in Gamergate who know exactly what it is doing. (Again, this is complicated by the difficulty in defining who it is, but there are absolutely sources in the article who say that Gamergate exists as a culturejamming operation intended to fight a culture war against ideological enemies; ones that say that it exists to oppose progressivism or feminism or other -isms, and so on. Saying "well, those sources are wrong, we need to say what Gamergate really says it is about" is substituting your own original research for the research of sources in the article. If you have particular sources that you feel the lead doesn't reflect, of course, go ahead and highlight them; but just looking over them myself, I'm not seeing it. --Aquillion (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Since it seems to have gotten lost in the mass of text above, I'll highlight it again: The article's lead currently says "These attacks, initially performed under the Twitter hashtag #gamergate, were later variously coordinated in the online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in an anonymous and amorphous movement." This seems to describe Gamergate using the term 'movement' that ColorOfSuffering wants, while matching how it is discussed in the sources above; much of the rest (the various arguments about what's driving this) are covered in the "Many users..." sentence a bit further down. Therefore, can we call this discussion closed? I'm not seeing any concrete reasons why that sentence is not sufficient to answer all the valid complaints raised above -- as far as I can tell, we've come to the conclusion that the lead needs to use the term 'movement' somewhere, and mention its history, but should avoid characterizing that movement beyond that. The current lead seems to satisfy all these requirements admirably. --Aquillion (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this discussion has gone on for a good amount of time, and personally I have the information I think I need to move forward with a more solid lead restructuring. The original comment was about the poor quality of the first sentence of the lead, which I feel is vague and insufficient compared to other better-written opening sentences in similar articles. The rest of the lead needs work, but it's not in as bad of a state as the first sentence. Unfortunately the discussion got completely submarined by multiple editors focusing solely on the word "movement" rather than the bulk of my original comment. It's probably my own fault; I only wanted to use the word movement to more clearly define Gamergate in the opening sentence ("movement" is used in many sources as a neutral descriptor for Gamergate without qualification, as pointed out above), not to push some kind of POV or attempt to legitimize the existence of Gamergate or their views. I mean, for the love of God, as you pointed out, we already describe Gamergate as a movement in the lead. It's the third sentence: These attacks, initially performed under the Twitter hashtag #gamergate, were later variously coordinated in the online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in an anonymous and amorphous movement. How on earth are people contesting the proposal of simply moving that definition up to the opening sentence? But also lost among that wall of text is some very productive feedback from yourself, Liz, EncyclopediaBob, Kaciemonster, Woodroar, and Pollinosisss, which I will use to craft what I feel is a more informative lead sentence and I thank you for what you've contributed to the discussion. Now, regarding the WBC and any other examples I use, I am not saying that they are exactly identical. That's a straw man. My point was that the WBC is only notable for their protest activities, in the same way that Gamergate is only notable for its harassment. The WBC is identified as a church in the opening sentence rather than as a hate group, which is how it is "widely described" (see the second sentence of the Wikipedia article). Gamergate is not identified at all in the opening sentence, which is a problem -- putting the cart before the horse (or the controversy before the subjects). In addition, I know that the WBC has official leaders and a website. That's irrelevant. WBC thinks it is one thing, but it's widely described as another thing. Gamergate thinks it is one thing, but it is widely described as another thing. Potato, potato (that doesn't quite work when it's typed out, does it?). And I am doing no original research with regards to "Gamergate thinks it is X." In fact, I'm fairly baffled as to why you have repeatedly asserted that this is not reflected in any reliable sources, and have now asserted that I'm conducting original research. Is it a problem with how I'm formatting the citations I'm posting? Are you just not seeing them? You'd previously said that I "should read some of the links you posted in more detail." I would offer you that same advice, and suggest that you read some of the sources I post here in any kind of detail before suggesting that I've conducted original research again. I'll try it one last time before we move to a new section, highlighting the relevant parts for you:

• "Supporters see it as a consumer movement that's also, essentially, leaderless. That means, they said, that more rational voices who want to talk about ethics in journalism have been drowned out by people sending loud, undeniably hateful speech in an Internet echo chamber that rewards sensationalism." -- Washington Post
• "The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage." -- The New York Times
• "They also say the media focus on the harassment of women obscures another important GamerGate message: to reform a powerful video game reviewing press they feel has an oversized influence in what gamers purchase." -- Al Jazeera
• "Many of her critics took his claims as evidence of corruption in gaming journalism. So they coalesced around the #gamergate hashtag on social media, claiming they were out to expose a gaming conspiracy. But the collective actions of the whipped-up online horde suggests otherwise." -- Christian Science Monitor
• "When reporters characterize Gamergate as misogynistic, proponents say those views don’t represent the movement. Instead, many claim to be advocating greater ethics among the video game press." -- Columbia Journalism Review
• "In fact, that reinforces the "us vs. them" rhetoric that GamerGaters prefer. They’re playing a game with an unattainable win state, steeped in a deep misunderstanding of the games journalism they claim to want to reform. " -- Entertainment Weekly
• "Regardless of the aims and beliefs of any one individual using the tag, Gamergate is an expression of a narrative that certain video-game fans have chosen to believe: that the types of games they enjoy may change or disappear in the face of progressive criticism and commentary, and that the writers and journalists who cover the industry coördinate their message and skew it to push an agenda." -- The New Yorker
• "But the people attacking Sarkeesian have been emboldened lately by #GamerGate, an online movement whose participants say they are targeting corruption in gaming journalism. The campaign has roots in hate speech towards women who make and talk about video games." -- Time

Do you see those quotes? The ones I just posted that state plainly what Gamergate proponents claim their movement is about? Do you see the quality of those sources? These are just a few examples that I could find easily; other articles actually quote Gamergate supporters but I left those out because they're not written using the author's voice. Many sources cite the stated aims of Gamergate, which is typically followed by a lengthy discussion of how the movement has behaved in contrast to these aims, how their aims are ill-conceived, or how the movement has been portrayed in media. What I'm doing when I post these long lists is how you are supposed to conduct research for contentious points. I'll quote WP:OR: "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly." I have done this. Repeatedly. For example, the Washington Post article uses "Consumer Movement" explicitly, as you can see above. That is what you're supposed to do, and it's what's been seriously lacking in the discussion of this article for a long time. But I we may be talking past each other, so when I have more time I'll start a new section that's perhaps a little more focused, if that's even possible on this page. I can already sense the itchy "let's close down this section" trigger finger of our silent Gamergate talk page admin sentries. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I see what some in gamergate say they are. i can say i am the grand high poobah of the united council of everything. doesnt make it so, nor would NYT reporting that i call myself that make it any more true. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. So you advise that we ignore what the reliable sources say? Well, I'll take that into consideration. Thanks for your feedback! ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. For your convenience, ColourOfSuffering, a paraphrasing: "I can say I am the grand high poobah... but NYT reporting that I call myself that doesn't make it true." PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

But it is a self-stated claim about themselves, made in a highly reliable source, and as such we can include it as a claim (or the fact this is what this person claims) alongside counterclaims that it is not true. That's the nature of a controversy in that there are two (or more) sides so we should be trying to objectively define the claims both sides are making and not prejudging either; keeping in mind specifically here that one side has a significant amount of coverage, and the other side, while nowhere close to that level and thus we're not going to have equal coverage per UNDUE, still has enough to provide objective statements about the self-stated claims from their side that we can stay objective and impartial in the coverage. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

And to stress - this only applies to claims they are making directly about themselves and their motives. Claims they have made about others with no backing/support would fail BLP even if the RS published it (And in fact, I have seen other BLP claims stated by GG mentioned in mainstream RS sources, and which we have not repeated at all in the article, which is a good thing). --MASEM (t) 02:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

However, one person claiming to speak for Gamergate or as a Gamergater is very problematic, because for most claims about GG there are opposite claims from people claiming to speak for Gamergate or as a Gamergater. The unorganized, decentralized, somewhat coordinated in some area, mostly anonymous claims make a single voice claiming to speak for Gamergate, as Gamergate or as a Gamergate difficult to remove from UNDUE territorty. Because just how authoritative is any given voice in that regard. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Except, that the sources that are reporting on self-stated claims from GGers are not contradictory in reporting those claims - they are saying GGs are looking at ethics, etc. However, it is a fair point that a single voice with no identity is hard to say is representative, however, I'm not seeing many sources base the whole of GG's self-stated motives on one voice. Take the Singal piece which is one of the better articles in an RS that hits on the claims made by many GGers (as he posed his questions to KIA directly). That's a lot better representation of the sample, even considering that Singal walks away from his article noting GG is not helping their cause any by their attitudes and lack of disorganization. --MASEM (t) 03:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Still having problems with anonymous representatives that may or may not be representative of Gamergate self-reporting about Gamergate - especially 1) when they contradict RS observations, and 2) anonymity means that anyone could claim anything. We already talk about what some Gamergate voices say Gamergate is about. What more in particular do you think needs to be included? Separately, I have a problem with the two-side framing. The article doesn't have two-sides it has at least three or four: Gamergate harassment, ethics claims, overreaction, reaction to social justice, gamer identity, Gamergate activities, etc. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't see a problem with noting that Gamergate claims to be a "consumer movement fighting for ethics in game journalism". The reliable sources definitely support that they claim that, and let's be honest here, pointing out how incredibly dubious that claim is is a large part of the back-and-forth between gamergate and everyone else, and understanding what gamergate thinks its doing (or at least, what the rank and file thinks its doing) brings a lot more clarity to the actions described in the article. As long as we are careful to say what the sources say, that it's a claim and nothing more, I don't see any problem with mentioning it, and I don't think doing so legitimizes the harassment in any way, if that's what people are worried about.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly how we should present it under an objective stance. Stating "GG claims they are X. Critics claim they are not X because of Y." is a completely neutral stance, and respects all sources without judgement. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, not quite. The RS aren't quoting the opinions of the critics, they're making the criticisms themselves. If wikipedia's voice is supposed to mimic the RS, then we would have to state something like "GG claims they are X, but they are not because of Y."Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Wu, PAX, Police

Citing threats, game maker pulls her company from PAX East fest: Says call for more security ignored Add the bit about the police not being contacted? Shorten the tried to contact PAX and this part? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what the police contact situation would add to the article. Personally would prefer if we just said she cancelled due to safety concerns for her employees and left it at that. No need to get into the specifics about PAX, as that's beyond the scope of the article. — Strongjam (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm for including that PAX didn't contact the police, and shortening the quote about PAX not responding to Wu.ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Police wouldn't be contacted, as it's a private event and the police presence would be the extent of it. If there's anything new worth adding, it would be "convention center officials conducted their own security assessment several months before PAX East, as they do before every event, but didn’t see any major red flags," which would explain why the concerns would come across as being "ignored." Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually police are quite regularly, in fact almost standardly, contacted about large scale private events where security may be an issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Right. Not at events where there, to use the reliable source, aren't "any major red flags." This is the kind of context that we didn't get from the first source, and we now have two sources that found it helpful to note the other side of the situation, as should we. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

the fact that convention organizers do not see widespread sustained death threat campaign against women as a "redflag" says something in and of itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps that there isn't one. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The "red flag" issue probably belong in one of the Women and Video Gaming article and/or sexual harassment. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why that would fit in there, but better discussed at that article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, recall again that death threats are typical in the industry. Would it be synthesis to add what I'm linking in this comment to the article? Yup. Is it the context we need as editors to understand why said threats aren't a "red flag" and why we should handle the topic responsibly in the article? Yes. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am glad find it interesting, and sad, that you are so comfortable with the fact that death threats are a common feature of the gaming community. However, your personal comfort does not mean that we treat or contextualize death threats as normal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You just seem to be strawmanning there. HalfHat 18:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

No strawmanning at all. Thargor Orlando made a specific plea that we as Wikipedia editors need to edit from within a context where death threats are normal. They are not. Nor do we edit from such a context. And it is sad that people believe such a context is and should be treated as normal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"This is normal" does not equate to "I'm comfortable with this". HalfHat 09:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

In context, this is different than general industry death threats (how horrible is it to minimize that?), these death threats are in the Gamergate context. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

As she's an industry representative and Gamergate is the thing du jour in gaming discussion in the media, it's not really too different. More to the point, the link shared in the section below (combined with the unfortunate reality of internet death threats) is probably why such threats aren't being taken as credible by the authorities. That's speculation for here, not for the article, and is really why I'm continuing to insist on proper context in our editorial decisions. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Police weren't contacted while Wu tried to work with PAX. Police were contacted after Wu pulled out. It's not our job as editors to make claims about what PAX or the police would or wouldn't do as SOP. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure on where but article on the "spoof" Jace Connors thing

[27]. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we use the Buzzfeed sources isntead? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

[28] This is probably the currently highest RS source there. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

But the mcvuk is sourced from Buzzfeed's interview.ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

International Business Times is also reporting on this as well (while still citing BuzzFeed). IBT is a reliable source, IIRC, and given the media attention that the "Deagle Nation" videos got re: GamerGate, inclusion I think is warranted [29] --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 19:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Trying to figure if this belongs in Wu's article, Women in gaming, sexual harassment, and/or here. It adds context to the harassment of Wu, and speaks to the effect of the GG harassment. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we can build a consensus that it belongs on Wu's article. kencf0618 (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Considering all of the twists and turns that GamerGate has gone through since August, this doesn't rank in the Top 10 of notable revelations. It only belongs in the main article if it is used as an example of the harassment certain women have experienced. The fact it was later revealed to be "fake" (and that occurred only after "Conners" received harassment), complicates things a bit but it involved very specific death threats and that is considered harassment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

this has received far less coverage that Klewe's "poop sock sniffers" commentary . per Liz, it's very minor aspect for which there is no need to try an shoe-horn it in. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Soapboxing

Focus on specific content and sources, stop the WP:SOAP Dreadstar ☥ 01:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
With all due civility, I'd like to draw your attention to some of the more glaring inefficacies of this article. I am concerned chiefly with the opening section, more specifically. As you may recall, I have previously opined--in a rather impudently vitriolic manner--about the galling lack of citations that rears its ugly head in the opening section. Seeing as how we are an ostensible encyclopedia, it's natural that we would be predicated upon citable veracity, yes? That veracity is one of the chief pillars of our entire methodology, yes? As such, it's more than somewhat perturbing to witness an entire article section--an article upon such a cause célèbre as this, no less--somehow manage to avoid adducing even a single source. Moreover, many of the sources adduced later in the course of the article amount to little other than grating displays of circular reasoning. X person is not biased. To substantiate this claim, here is X, saying that they are not biased. If that isn't circular, humans aren't aerobes. This would be perfectly negligible if the allegations made were truistic in nature--it's common knowledge, after all, that Albert Einstein was a man who lived. It isn't necessary to cite a list of witnesses. However, the divulged information--or misinformation, as the case may be--bears considerable gravity. It is by no means innocuous--indeed, one wouldn't be remiss to call it indicting. Such circumstances outright demand the presence of stalwart adductions--which makes the fact that there aren't any all the more egregious. Furthermore, the ramifications of said (mis?)information are quite pervasive. You're attributing some very unscrupulous and frequently abhorred actions to a very wide swath of people--an entire subculture, in fact. Such allegations simply cannot go unsubstantiated if we value our integrity. As I'm sure your fully cognizant of, libelous content is quite vociferously proscribed by our fundamental guidelines--and, what with the present unsourced nature of this article, it isn't too farfetched to construe it as being libelous. To maintain an article which so evidently disobeys this order would be quite a shameful display of sanctimony on our behalf. Moreover, linking to the various sources mentioned does not constitute citation. By the reasoning apparently utilized here, this statement is infallible: I say that X did this. I can show you that X exists. Ergo, X did what I said it did. Even to the untrained eye, this is a flawed pattern of reasoning. As such, any reader(s) would be well within reason to react with incredulity. Given a superficial appraisal, linking to the mentioned sources appears to get all the boxes checked, but, with a more keen eye for detail, we can realize that this is not the case. If you'll allow me to digress for a moment: I have been quite unequivocal in admitting that I am pro-gamergate--this, I shall not deny. However, I am, of course, willing to compromise--I'm not exactly content with just how vehemently this one issue is perturbing our fiduciary and ethical stability. As such, I am perfectly fine with staying my a priori believes whilst conversing about this subject here. Furthermore, my own personal biases do not in any way taint or discredit the validity of my objections regarding the current state of this article. While all of this should be more or less tacit, I wish to leave no margin for error. Returning to my original point, the exigencies of writing a proper Wikipedia article preclude us from being able to dismiss these errors. Now, errors are inexorable, of this, I am keenly aware, but to have ones of such magnitude be so long abiding is quite an atrocity. It's tarnishing our previously at-least-somewhat-credible reputation, and it's engendering quite a bit of social turmoil for our editors. This makes the fact that the solution is so simple all the more regrettable. What is that solution? Besides simple, anyway. All that we must do is find sources to cite. In so doing, we shall erase any and all contentiousness regarding the credibility of our allegations. However, it is possible that we may not be able to do so. If this is the case, then I'm afraid we must bar our anecdotal experiences and consider the inclusion of said allegations to be fraudulent. Following this, we must then rectify the contents of the article so that they may more accurately reflect the reality of the situation. As should be tacit, citations must be included. In conclusion, it isn't particularly pleasurable to witness such a dubitable article go without rectification. As such, I propose that the aforementioned solutions should be enacted as soon as necessity allows. I invite your input, but attempt to remain constructive. P.S. I've received complaints regarding the apparently gargantuan volume of material that I've been dispensing with these edits. If such is truly the case, I offer my sincerest apologies. As a relatively nascent editor, I suppose I haven't completely eschewed my freshman naiveté. However, some things simply must be said, however luridly lengthy and tumescent they may be. Even still, I shall attempt to avoid perpetrating such errors in the future. Ghost Lourde (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC) tl;dr, but apparently you have not read WP:CITELEAD nor the archives where it has been determined by consensus many times that this lead does not need citations because all of the claims are clearly supported by the content and sources in the body. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Seconding TRPoD, this is very verbose. If you have multiple issues I'd suggest opening multiple, focused, discussions (or just stick to one at a time.) Otherwise we'll just end up with a long rambling discussion going nowhere. And do try and be brief. — Strongjam (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC) I truly cannot make heads or tails of this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "X person is not biased. To substantiate this claim, here is X, saying that they are not biased." False. If you take a look at the citations demonstrating a lack of bias, you'll see that it's external bodies making the claims that the "involved" bodies are, for all intents and purposes, unbiased. The circular reasoning, in fact, lies in the claim that every new, independent body (elsewhere treated as reliable sources without controversy) that finds the previous bodies to be unbiased, is thus biased because of what is said, or in other words: "X is biased because it said Y is unbiased, Y is biased because it said Z is unbiased", repeat ad infinitum. "As I'm sure your fully cognizant of, libelous content is quite vociferously proscribed by our fundamental guidelines--and, what with the present unsourced nature of this article, it isn't too farfetched to construe it as being libelous." The accusations are not unsourced. If you haven't finished the article yet, it's okay to skip ahead. Here they are, for your convenience -- we actually have ~180 of them. "As such, I am perfectly fine with staying my a priori believes" You misspelled "beliefs" as "believes". For shame. "You're attributing some very unscrupulous and frequently abhorred actions to a very wide swath of people--an entire subculture, in fact" I started playing video games at the age of six, in the mid-nineties. With all due respect, I've been playing video games for longer than you've been alive, according to your user page. (In fact, so has my little sister, come to think of it -- she's real big into Zelda, Pokemon, Smash Bros, and Team Fortress.) I was introduced to them by my aunt and grandmother, who played Donkey Kong, Mega Man, and Primal Rage with me, among others, for years, and they play similar games to this day. My mother introduced me to board gaming (and not just family games, but Catan, Discworld, etc.) and fantasy literature, which she had been into for nearly twice as long as I've been alive. My other aunt is a dedicated gamer, anime nerd, scifi nerd, LARPer, sword collector, etc. -- and she's older than my father, and has been at this more than twice as long as I've been alive. Her collection alone is larger than my house. As far as the, ah, "subculture"? If you mean "being a gamer/nerd", well, we're not being attributed anything, and with all due respect, women/"SJWs" have been there and enjoying it longer than you've been alive, much less longer than you've been in the scene. Although, to be fair, if you instead mean that they are attributed to the subculture of "Anti-SJW/female-voices gamers", sure, I think we could run with that, but if we're going to talk about any such attacks in the article, we'd have to spend a reasonable amount of time belaboring the distinction between gamers and "gamers who want women to shut up". @Masem: The OP admitted in their own words that this was soapboxing. It's extremely irregular to dehat self-admitted soapboxing with the claim that it is a "severe issue that needs discussing". Almost by definition, it is not.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC) A severe issue that needs discussing: is this a satirical allusion to Romney’s "governing as a severe conservative?" How can an issue be severe? And you aren't just whistling Dixie,@EvergreenFir:. Is it satire, perhaps? "Stalwart adductions!" "Truistic allegations!" "Errors are inexorable!" A "dubitable article" is consigned to "go without rectification." (of our bodily humors?) A "relatively nascent editor"! An article that is "luridly lengthy and tumescent"! (Hello, Fred Merkle) I think TRPoD was right to hat this. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Just as a comment on the process that needs to be employed here under sanctions, not the content of what was hatted, it is not helping towards consensus to simply hat a comment without allowing for any back and forth discussion. If the discussion runs the course of the usual lines, or you can point back to a previous discussion, that's different. But to simply hat without commenting is silencing discussion and that's something that ArbCom's findings would be problematic. (Also, I did not interpret the comments that the poster was soapboxing, but how they felt that the article was running afowl of policy regarding soapboxing (WP:NOT#SOAPBOX), which is something that should be given time to discuss, particularly if replies asked the user to summarize their points better.) --MASEM (t) 21:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC) It is not helpful to soapbox, nor encourage WP:TE, either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Masem, if you can distill any sensical comment that is a legit concern that has not yet been addressed, I'm all ears. I still don't know what they were saying. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC) The thing is, yes, it was rambling, and the points weren't clear, and someone commented after unhatting that if the poster could provide more cohesive points to help discussion. As such, there's plenty here to be discussed further if the poster was given the proper chance to respond. Shutting down discussion without giving a bit of back and forth to figure out if the discussion might be fruitful, is not helpful at all. ArbCom has told us to use talk pages to avoid editing warring. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC) With 30 archived talk pages, one thing that can't be asserted about this article is that there hasn't been enough discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC) It could just as easily be argued that the state of the article is what's encouraging the continued soapboxing, and that a more collaborative tone on this talk page as well as a NPOV article would cut back on the so-called "soapboxing" we're seeing. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Occam's razor or it could be the well documented outside organizing to disrupt the page the leads to the disruption. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC) TRPoD is correct in regard to canvassing and its attendant woes. Speaking of the state of the article, I believe a talk page is intended for discussing concrete improvements? It's hard to find an actionable suggestion amid the luridly lengthy and tumescently inexorable errors. If the poster believes there is an NPOV concern in the article, the 25+ pages of archives are thataway and discuss this at length, concluding in a consensus that is reflected in the article. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC) What is comprehensible here is not actionable; what might be actionable is incomprehensible. I think this is meant to be WP:FORUM, but whatever it is, it's not improving the article. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. With all due respect. Yes, yes indeed. Please, gentlemen. Don't eschew civility for my sake--as risible as you may believe my words to be, your mockery is quite unwarranted. There is no need to be anything but amiable--after all, we are all fellow editors, no? The aforementioned 'collaborative tone' has my backing, at any rate. "Well, we're not being attributed anything" is the contentious subject of the hour. Are you really sure that that's the case? Examine this quote. It's verbatim. "The harassment included doxing, threats of rape, and death threats, including a threat of a mass shooting at a university speaking event." That's nothing to sneeze at, I'm afraid. As I mentioned previously, those are some very unscrupulous actions. Moreover, they are being attributed to the GG movement. Ah, but perhaps I was unclear. I suppose they're not being attributed to the entire gaming subculture--upon this, I concur. However, they are nevertheless being levied against quite a wide swath of individuals. My mistake. Nevertheless, the same logic applies: Such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Mind you, I wouldn't actually be all to irritated if such were actually the case--indeed, you appear to have stated that you have substantive evidence proving that it is. The issue, then, is one of inline citations. As I recall, it's typically preferable to reference a source immediately after the statement which requires it. However, the opening article, sadly, does not presently do this. For ease of verification, I suggest that we rectify this immediately. Oh the subject of the circular reasoning, I suppose your portrayal is more accurate. However, as you have so dutifully noted, it is nevertheless equally fallacious. If these are the '180~ sources' of which you speak, I'm afraid the article's predicates are looking a bit unstable. Another point of contention: "we'd have to spend a reasonable amount of time belaboring the distinction between gamers and "gamers who want women to shut up"." I beg your pardon? I'm sorry, but as of yet, I haven't met any gamer who wants 'women to shut up'--at least, not any that have associated themselves with the subject of this article. You seem a bit misguided about the ostensible purposes of the movement--as well as just who its members are, moreover. And, yes, I utilize the term 'ostensible' rather frequently. I know what it means, I swear. I'm not using it as an intensifier. Additionally, I'm a bit curious as to why you felt compelled to solidify your merits as a gamer--I'm not exactly concerned with that. My complaints have surfaced as a result of a perceived lack of citations--whether or not that lack is actually present has yet to be cemented. I'm not discussing gaming here--and, evidently, neither is the article--so you needn't attempt to dismiss a skepticism which is quite nonexistent. One final note: If we are going to discuss harassment, we should perhaps hold both sides to the same standard. That's only fair, after all. If, indeed, these harassers are representative of the sides as a whole--a claim which, I might add, is somewhat dubious--we should highlight that in this article. Before you claim that Anti-GG has not perpetrated any harassment, I'd like you to watch this video. Before you accuse me of cherry picking, do note that many notable anti-gg figures are quoted. That was a very hasty closure of that discussion. An unwarranted one, I believe. I respect your judgement, however, so I decided to address some somewhat different issues. However, an accurate representation of 'consensus' cannot be attained so swiftly, I'd think. Once more, I invite your input. Ghost Lourde (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC) tl;dr. Be consice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC) 'Consice'? I don't think I need you to read it. It's a 'long' issue, I suppose. If you can't read that, well, sorry. Ghost Lourde (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC) I think that your manner of communication is going to lead to results that are the exact opposite of the resolution you desire.--Jorm (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Brevity is the soul of wit. You don't need to have 3 sentences before you even begin to discuss your point, nor do you need to start a new paragraph each time a shiny object distracts you. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Your opinions--and marginal incivility--are duly noted. Ghost Lourde (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Have you read WP:CITELEAD which TRPoD recommended that your look at or Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 25#Citations in the Lede that Strongjam offered to previous discussions of this issue in the talk page archives? I think that would really help before pursuing this conversation. Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC) The lede is a summary of the rest of the article and does not require citations. The rest of the article includes citations for the "extraordinary" claims you think the lede is making. The youtube video is not a reliable source. Not everyone on this talk page is a gentleman. Consider shortening your post. Kaciemonster (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC) I've added the question about lede citations to the FAQ so people will stop asking it. Bosstopher (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Sigh. At the very least, you should pay due attention to the other issues addressed by my queries. Furthermore, if the video isn't credible, the tweets contained therein are. Your advice about length is noted. Ghost Lourde (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC) when you bury issues in a wall of text, you should not expect people to pick through to find that needle. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC) A wall of text? Naturally. You didn't read it, after all. Come to think of it, I wonder why you're even participating in this discussion if you haven't. Ghost Lourde (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "However, the opening article, sadly, does not presently do this." And, by longstanding convention, it's not supposed to. You should read at least a few of the responses to your screed if you expect the community to read yours. "However, as you have so dutifully noted, it is nevertheless equally fallacious." ...correct, as I noted, it is fallacious and circular for you to be claiming that sources like the New York Times are biased because, in their estimation, the groups you are criticizing are unbiased. "They're wrong because they disagree with me, and disagree with me because they're wrong" is textbook circular reasoning. "At the very least, you should pay due attention to the other issues addressed by my queries." Beyond vague, inactionable claims of circular reasoning, your only request given is to claim that the lede is uncited. As has been stated multiple times, this is by convention, and your willful ignorance of policy does not mean that the policy is in error. In short: I recommend that henceforth you hesitate to articulate for fear that you may deviate from the course of true rectitude. Other replies are on your user talk page. Also, per your BLP-violations noted on your user article, I would strongly recommend you to reconsider that youtube link, before the admins get a chance to look at it. Friendly advice.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC) That isn't what I meant by being fallacious. By longstanding convention? Well, I'm somewhat curious as to why that's conventional, but I suppose it is. Oh well. My apologies, then. What? The video contained pertinent information. I'm not entirely enthused by its evidently biased writing, but it highlights something worth discussing. I'll attempt to be more lucid in delineating just what, so that it might be perceived as 'actionable'. Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Well, you said that I dutifully noted that it was fallacious. Do you need me to phrase things in plainer words for you? I would be happy to facilitate your understanding by whatever means necessary. NORLY, dood. Links like that gonna get the mods breathin down ya neck. In the friendliest possible terms, I rly think you should rethink posting it.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Suggested changes to the policy or questions about the policy history would need to be made at the policy page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC) The truth can sometimes be contentious. Shoot the messenger if you must, but I'm not taking down that video. I'm not yet inclined to revise such abiding conventions, but I'm curious as to there function, at any rate. I maintain that circular reasoning has been employed here--not by me, but by the article. No, no, you needn't patronize me. Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Occam's razor but its more likely the truth is simple. do you have any specific and actionable requests that you can present as such so that they do not get lost in walls of text? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll bite. Terseness isn't my forte, however, so bear with me.

I'll go with this: It's somewhat biased of us to only be noting the harassment perpetrated by one side. It's quite clear that harassment has been coming from both, frankly. It's rather undeniable.

As such, I suggest that we include some mention of it in the lead, preferably alongside the other harassment-mentioning already present within it. We are dedicated to covering all bases, after all.

There. That seems like a fairly cogent request. Happy? Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE we follow the sources, and the sources focus almost entirely on the harassment emanating from gamergate. that is how we will present the harassment in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to append a few more, then.

Are you seriously suggesting that anti-gg hasn't harassed anyone? Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

are you seriously suggesting that what has received the overwhelming lion's share of ALL coverage about gamergate has not been the harassment emanating from gamergate? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

−

Ok, firstly harassment against members of Gamergate is noted in the article in the subsequent harassment section, (start reading from various supporters). There is probably some room to expand this section using reliable sources, but not enough to make it a significant part of the article (youtube is not a reliable source). The lede, as has been mentioned multiple times, is the summary of the article so if you propose a change to the lede it should be to make the lede more representative of the article, your change does not do this. As it stands harassment of GGers is not a significant enough part of the article to warrant mention in the lede, and I suspect even if expanded (and there is some room for expansion), it still wouldn't be able to warrant a place in the lede. My advice for you would be to search for reliable sources that mention harassment of GGers and to try and improve the article with these sources, not the lede. Also please back away from the thesaurus.Bosstopher (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Making no claims on whether they believe that claim is true or not, no, what they're suggesting is that there are no RS that have been found of provided that claim that Anti-GG has been harassing anyone. At the very least, not enough for it to pass WP:UNDUE. If you want such a thing added to the lead, you would need to find enough WP:RS making that claim that they pass the WP:UNDUE threshold. It would probably be the most efficient use of your time to go on that hunt.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

What? They're not looking at it, ergo, it doesn't exist? Is that what you're saying?

Of course they're only focusing upon the harassment perpetrated by GG. They're opposed to it, after all. And, yes, they *are* opposed to it. Article after endless article has been written by the aforementioned sources about it. Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

What the policies say, is that if the reliable sources are not looking at it, it doesnt matter to Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

[comment retracted by original poster]

This source is biased. That's evident. The content contained therein, however, is incontrovertible harassment.

I wouldn't cite that as a 'reliable source', per se, but, were I to compound the same information into an unbiased document, it would be rather difficult to refute. Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

you have b

Bring in reliable sources (not YouTube videos) that cover harassment of GamerGater folks and it will be included. It is mentioned in the article, if you read through the entire piece.

And I'm not comfortable with hatting that entire discussion, Mark, as we did cover some ground there that I fear might all have to be repeated again now that it's hidden. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

you have been told several times to be careful about what links you place on this page per WP:BLP .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to mention one side's harassment in the lede, then we should mention both side's. That is my contention.

I am aware that that video is not a 'reliable source', of course, but take a long hard look at those tweets. Tell me that isn't harassment. I dare you.

If that still doesn't satisfy, however, let's get a bit more empirical.

I invite you to read this study. [blp redacted] Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:GEVAL we dont create false equivalencies. (please read the policies) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

And that site is completely inappropriate filled with BLP violations and posting it on Wikipedia has lead to users being blocked/banned. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I beg your pardon?

I don't know what you mean by 'false equivalencies'.

Moreover, that study is presented with a completely unbiased tone. The media outlets you cite are filled with BLP violations, in fact. That doesn't seem relevant, however.

In any case, you should read the study. Empiricism cannot violate BLP guidelines. Ghost Lourde (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: is your objection to that specific page, or the host URL in general? Not seeing anything terrible on that specific link. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ghost Lourde: As I mentioned earlier the article already mentions harassment against GGers, and nobody is denying that it didnt happen. Instead of responding to this comment, you chose to revert a retracted comment by another editor, for no apparent reason other than soapboxing. Pointless 'I dare you to say this youtube video isnt fact' rhetoric gets nobody anywhere. Harassment against GGers is acknowledged in the reliable source so please stick to the reliable sources if you wish to make some productive changes to this article. Bosstopher (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't revert a retracted comment by another editor, nor am I soapboxing. I really don't know what you're talking about.

Once more, I invite you to read this study. Empiricism cannot violate BLP regulations. [Redacting potential BLP] Ghost Lourde (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ghost Lourde: First, please start indenting your comments. Second, that's not WP:RS. It has no use here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Apologies. It has no use here? It's a scientific study. I believe it has plenty of use here. Ghost Lourde (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do read WP:RS. It's not peer reviewed (and not scientific really, just data description). It's also not a secondary source. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! The site you linked has many, many BLP violations, so I'm redacting the link. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, is it that particular page with the violations, or the site in general? If the latter, not sure we should be redacting it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Specifically the site- I scanned the article and didn't find anything, but I didn't really want to have to trawl through the extensive comments and the site has numerous BLP violations readily accessible elsewhere on it. If I was wrong to have redacted the link- my apologies, and feel free to reinsert it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That data description is quite pertinent. It's not peer reviewed, but it's certainly peer reviewable. How is it not a secondary source? Furthermore, there are no BLP violations. I'm reposting the link. http://gamergate.me/2014/11/data-study-on-harassment/ Ghost Lourde (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ghost the comment I am referring to is this one. Please read through it and try to take the advice I have given you about reliable sources to heart, here are a list of sources you may find useful. I will be disengaging from this conversation until you start making productive suggestions that are possible within wikipedias policies and guidelines. I strongly suggest other editors do the same.Bosstopher (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That was accidental. My apologies. I'll look into those sources. Thank you. Moreover, the suggested changes are perfectly actionable within the guidelines of Wikipedia. Ghost Lourde (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've run out of coherence for the day. Terribly sorry. I'll be back tomorrow, though. Please don't delete the discussion, however. I think we might finally be getting somewhere. Ghost Lourde (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The so-called study on the gamergate site is (a) not peer-reviewed, (b) methodologically unsound, and (c) user-generated content. It can't be cited in the article, end of discussion. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, there's some serious bite-age going on here. I still can't tell if this editor is serious or not, but if he is we definitely owe him the benefit of the doubt. He's wandered into a minefield and may not know all of the relevant policies regarding original research and reliable sources. We were all new once. I say we stay cool; just because a link is unreliable, doesn't mean it immediately violates BLP. It might not be suitable for inclusion in the article, sure, but let's not go throwing around threats of bans and blocks just because someone isn't familiar with all of the policies of the site. His history of edits show that he's not an obvious troll, and he had made productive edits in article spaces in the past. Give the guy a chance. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This editor has been blocked once already for BLP violations on this very talk page.drseudo (t) 04:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that this editor is not here to build the encyclopedia. Can we just impose the sanctions and move on? This thread is taking up a lot of time and energy.--Jorm (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, and my sincerest apologies, this is absurd. Firstly, yes, I have received sanctions for BLP violations on this very page. That, I do not deny. Proposing that you should impose further sanctions upon me when I have perpetrated no further violations, however, is quite ham-fisted. Yes, I am here to discuss the merits of the article, and I am doing with so with the intent of improving it. Now then, let's get on to something actually salient: Firstly, you've stated that it's not 'peer-reviewed'. That shouldn't come as any surprise, however. It's a peerless work. It's a cake that no one wishes to taste. It's not that the baker's shop isn't open, it's just that the consumer base despises the proprietor for having baked it. In any case, it is certainly peer reviewable, but, thus far, everyone has declined to give it the necessary attention. Moving along. Secondly, you stated that it is 'methodologically unsound'. Please elucidate for us just how this is so. To me, it seems like a perfectly innocuous act of empiricism. Finally, you've stated that it is 'user-generated content'. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you asserting that I conducted this study? Because I didn't. Are you saying that it's an incredulous source merely because I am the one who was brought it your attention? That would be quite an objectionable justification. Or, are you saying that, because it wasn't posited by Jezebel.com or Forbes, it's an impertinent source? That would be equally objectionable. In fact, it's quite a bit more credible a source than the aberrant conglomeration of poisoned wells and straw men you've so regularly been citing as reliable sources. On a final note, I have had it up to nine feet above my head with people redacting the link to the study. It does not violate any BLP guidelines. If I see one more knee-jerk redacting of the link solely because someone saw the 'gamergate' and '.me' in the URL, this computer is going to be fucking defenestrated. I'm reposting the link. Redact it once more, and your efficacy as an editor shall be brought into serious question. http://gamergate.me/2014/11/data-study-on-harassment/ Ghost Lourde (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It is an anonymous work posted on a website that does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Please familiarize yourself with WP:IRS. It's simply not a reliable source and is not usable in this article. — Strongjam (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've posted an inquiry regarding the redaction of this link here: [30]. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to read the article? It's accredited to a specific individual at the very beginning. Fact-checking? Check this: It's an empirical study which utilizes, compiles, and displays numerical data for your scrutiny, interpretation, and reproduction. Please familiarize yourself with Empiricism. Ghost Lourde (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ghost Lourde: This is becoming WP:IDHT. We've told you multiple times that that link is not a reliable source. Moreover, it's a primary source from a group with an invested interest in the topic. The source cannot be used in the article. Ever. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That's actually the wrong reason it can't be used. There is nothing wrong with primary sources from an invested group as supporting references in an article (this is done all over WP for filling in finer details that might be useful), but they simply cannot be used for demonstrating notability on their own (which requires secondary sources), nor should they be given undue weight in comparison to secondary sources due to their lack of independence. What does prevent this source from being used here is that it makes BLP claims that we should not be linking to at all. If there was a filtered version without BLP claims, it may be a usable source. A second issue is again the nature of the GG lack-of-organization, as we cannot verify that this site "represents" GG in any manner so we have no sense of authority on who wrote this and if they speak for GG. That's why we pretty much stuck with how secondary sources represent the claims that GG made. But it is not simply because this is a primary source that we cant use it. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if it didn't have BLP claims, I don't see why we would treat it differently than any other anonymous blog post. It isn't usable at all. Kaciemonster (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

However, it is on a site that has numerous other BLP issues in various articles, and without the quality controls of an RS. For the same reason we avoid sources like TMZ for celebrity gossip, even if the specific article does not have any BLP concerns, the same thought process works here - the site is "tainted" because of this fact. I will also add that, in checking the analysis, it is one of those things that "statistics can be manipulated"-type concerns. At least to some extent, the Newsweek survey of tweets was done by a third party so there was enough separate of interest to not be a concern, and while this specific article does try to outline how it avoided any biasing of the data, it was done by someone tightly connected to events and thus a lot of doubt (in addition to the lack of RS nature of the site to begin with). It would be different if it was a list of what the GG goals were, just stating claims; but with this analysis, its really really hard to accept above and beyond the BLP issues. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Um... Did you mean for this to be a response to me? Kaciemonster (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your comment. The analysis still applies in terms of the specific article being very unusable. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and no worries, I was just trying to point out that it would still be unusable even without the BLP violations. I thought you might've meant it as a response to Ghost Lourde's comment below, it seems relevant. Kaciemonster (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not entirely sure what the precise issue is with these ostensible BLP violations. Could you, perhaps, highlight some specific contraventions? I'm not seeing any. Sure, it's an article that's being hosted by gamergate.me, but beyond that, it seems perfectly innocuous. Were it to be republished anywhere else, it would be perfectly viable. Moreover, many of the sources you so frequently cite have much more of an 'invested interest' in this topic than this source does. Once more, I request that you analyze the article in question. Set aside your personal predilections and deliver an informed opinion regarding its merit, please. Ghost Lourde (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Once more, I request that you analyze the article in question. Set aside your personal predilections and deliver an informed opinion regarding its merit, please." It's been made clear that the source is not usable for this article, so this is not the place to discuss it. This is not a forum to discuss Gamergate, rather a place to discuss how to improve the article. — Strongjam (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no, it hasn't been made clear that the source is not usable in this article. Presently, that is what we are discussing. This is the place to discuss such things, after all. Ghost Lourde (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Self published blogs are not reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the comments, it has been reviewed -- by Eastgate, who is apparently a prominent statistician. The thing is, said review found it extremely wanting. The claim that "the opposition simply refuses to give it the time of day" is categorically false -- it's been reviewed, by at least one authority who knows how to math, and their opinion is that it's a piece of junk.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Blog comments are not reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Wait, do you mean this? https://medium.com/@cainejw/an-actual-statistical-analysis-of-gamergate-dfd809858f68 Ghost Lourde (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Self published blogs are not reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As opposed to non self-published blogs, I presume. In any case, I was not calling it a source--I was merely wondering just what Krypton was alluding to. Ghost Lourde (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As my computer appears unable to access this comment section, I'd appreciate if someone did me the courtesy of duplicating it on here. However, if it's just a statement of disagreement--well, you shouldn't exactly waste the effort. I'm looking for sound methodological deconstruction, not gnashing of teeth. Ghost Lourde (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, *now* I get it! You're calling *my* article an unreliable source. Care to elucidate just why you believe this is? Presently, I can think of no reason why you do. Furthermore, please stop deleting the article being discussed--we've already established that no BLP guidelines are violated by it. Your delete shall be reversed, and, if you question this action, you shall be delivered the preceding reason. Ghost Lourde (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Gamergate Conspiracy

We have discussed at some length above whether Gamergate should be described as a "controversy," as we do now, or as a "movement”, as Gamergate supporters apparently prefer. The sources clearly have a hard time finding the precise language to use here. So do we. Let’s look at all the options.

A movement is “a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas.” The members, or the leaders, of a movement are identifiable people, and the shared ideas are typically put forth in a manifesto or platform. Examples include the labor movement, the temperance movement, the Impressionist movement, and the Chautauqua movement. Even the resistance movements of the Second World War were characterized by organization; indeed, organization is what distinguishes an “organized resistance,” and a resistance necessarily adheres to stated principles. Gamergate lacks leadership, organization, or a statement of principles. Gamergate is not a movement; nomovement come to mind that lacks both leadership and manifesto.

A controversy is “a dispute, a prolonged public disagreement.” Controversy surrounds Gamergate; indeed, that controversy has made Gamergate notable. Some have argued here at some length that, while controversy surrounds Gamergate, Gamergate is not a controversy. They do have a point: our sources do write of “Gamergate supporters,” but no one writes about “Watergate supporters” or “Tea Pot Dome supporters.” Our current lede uses “controversy” as a generous fiction: it's not perfect, but it’s been satisfactory for some time and I have no strong objection to maintaining it.

We do have a word that does apply rigorously to Gamergate as it is described by the sources: that word is conspiracy A conspiracy is “a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful,” and this is precisely what our sources describe. Gamergate’s absence of visible leadership and the lack of expressed principles aren’t compatible with the behaviors of movements but are, of course, quite common in conspiracies from Alcibiades to Cataline and onward.

“Plot” might be an alternative to “conspiracy,” though it is probably even more pejorative. “Scheme” would also work in its American usage, but its use in British English to describe a governmental or institutional programme would cause confusion. “Crusade” captures the fervor of Gamergate’s supporters and the violence of their sentiments, but crusades have a stated goal. Likewise, Gamergate cannot be a “campaign” or a “drive” as it lacks an objective toward which to it steer. “Cabal” is possible, I suppose.

But “conspiracy” is precise. “Conspiracy” also lets us finesse the problem of Gamergate being said to “claim” to be a movement. Who can credibly assert that claim? Someone might claim that Gamergate is a clam, or a festival, or a joke: how should we judge? If someone claims it’s one thing, and someone else claims it’s not, how do we distinguish? In two ways: WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. Following the latter, it’s hard to see that Gamergate can be made to fit the definition of “movement,” but it clearly fits the definition of “conspiracy” perfectly. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As the lack of sources that call it out as "Gamergate conspiracy", compared to either "Gamergate controversy" or "Gamergate movement", this should not be done. (There are conspiracy-like elements within the Gamergate claims such as about collusion between devs and journalists, but that's not the full extent of their arguments) Further, calling it a conspiracy or a plot is pushing a judgemental point of view that WP cannot do; we must stay objective in covering this and not attempt to cast any condemnation on them at all. "Movement" is the most neutral/objective, but "controversy" is also as frequent in terms of source use and is at least a reasonable description of this. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

We do actually have a peer-reviewed source that calls it a conspiracy. "Over the months of August and September in 2014, an independent game developer by the name of Zoe Quinn and her friends have found themselves the target of an equally misogynist backlash by a coordinated conspiracy. While originally labelled under the hashtag ‘#quinnspiracy’, it evolved into a collective movement known as ‘gamergate’." – Heron, Michael James; Belford, Pauline; Goker, Ayse (2014). "Sexism in the circuitry". ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society. 44 (4). Association for Computing Machinery: 18–29. doi:10.1145/2695577.2695582. ISSN 0095-2737. — Strongjam (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that the sources calling it a conspiracy didn't exist, just that they are nowhere near numbers to move off "controversy" (or to "movement") - a google check shows 30-40k for conspiracy/movement and only about 1k for conspiracy. One thing to keep in mind, and this is a point in RSes about the group: what its intents were at the onset changed as it grew, and continue to chase as it gets out of control. Did it likely start with a conspiracy? Sure. But at the "height" of this (say, the Oct-Dec timeframe), there were a number of people involved that were in it not because they were in a conspiracy but because they were honestly believing there were trying to talk about ethics. There certainly remained conspiratorial elements as there likely are still today, but at that point, there were probably numerous small factions with GG that whatever the goal was was unclear. The anonymous and uncoordinated nature of GG means it was also amorphous, and what its nature has changed since August. Hence why "controversy" is probably the best term if there's a strong discomfort with using "movement"; it doesn't attempt to describe a nature (positively or negatively) to the GG groups. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I gotta agree with Masem here. We're not really supposed to be handing out diagnoses from our own judgment, as it were, and so while we may be able to demonstrate how GG checks the checklist, if the preponderance of RS don't say it, we really shouldn't either.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we call it an "incident" or "incidents"? --George Ho (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That's even less a chance by google hit names. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)