Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Sanctions enforcement

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

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

Explanation of PeterTheFourth's revert of an edit by DHeyward

Hi! I've reverted your removal of a qualifying statement regarding a series of tweets made by Sam Biddle. This area is very contentious, and it seems important to me that we make sure to describe it as reliable sources do, rather than simply quoting verbatim. These quotes were only recently added (previously we only described it as a series of tweets), and I feel that if it is important enough to have the full quotes there we should also describe it in full. If you disagree, feel free to revert it and discuss your decision here or on my talk page. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't add or remove it, but I sort of see DHeyward's issue. Specifically, the quotes are the most important part, but each edit continually adds more and more before it, rather than getting to the point, the tweets, and then allowing the discussion to take place afterword (including the fact that many sources feel they may have been jokes, although in bad taste). Ries42 (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

CJR said a lot of things in that article and most are not kind to Gawker or Biddle. Rather than keep enlarging it with point/counterpoint, it's better to keep it simple. Biddle tweeted, it had fallout, -> media, activists and advertisers reacted. Point/counterpoint on Biddle's or Gawker's intent is largely irrelevant. --DHeyward (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

In that case, is it necessary to quote the tweets rather than simply mention them? We're suffering from an overabundance of quotes as it is, and it would be nice to trim them away. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, paraphrased is always better. Quotefarm articles suck. --DHeyward (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Would "a series of mocking tweets" be accurate? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"derisive" would be more accurate considering the reaction and apology. --DHeyward (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure 'regarding bullying of nerds' is the best phrasing (not that I have any suggestions for improvement), but it's already looking a lot better and more concise. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

To interject, I do not agree with removing the actual quoted tweets. While most of the time paraphrasing and removing quotes are good, especially when we have situations where there are dueling quotes (many instances in this article), in this case, the quotes are the actual disputed matter. Commentators, and hell, even those against Mr. Biddle may agree that they were a 'sarcastic joke,' that does not change the implied malice in the tweets. That is lost by not actually presenting the tweets, and the words Mr. Biddle wrote. We're losing important context by removing the words he spoke, as they are actually what is controversial and indeed, notable, about this section. We have an entire article to explain the context of why he wrote the tweets, and several commentators to explain what he "meant" by them; however, we shouldn't lose the actual words. It would be like removing Zoe Quinn's name from the article. Its not appropriate and I'm restoring the tweets. Feel free to add what you may feel is necessary before and after them, but the words should stay. Ries42 (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I've removed these quotes again, as proposed by DHeyward. The exact contents of the tweets are not important to understand what they were about nor the consequences. What is notable about the incident is that advertising was pulled as a result of campaigning, not that some tweets were made on twitter. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I really do not appreciate you removing the tweets again. Several editors have worked on this before you and DHeyward came to this section. At best, there was discussion by two editors over a period of a couple hours and then they were removed. That does not equal consensus. DHeyward made several edits, and I reinserted one part that I felt was necessary. There is important context lost by not just writing out the tweets at issue here. When the words Mr. Biddle wrote ended up costing gawker 'seven figures' in revenue, those words became pretty damn notable and important. Important and notable enough that even the Columbia Journalism Review article cited here felt it was important to quote the exact tweets in its article. Its like trying to talk about the impact of the Gettysburg Address, or MLK's I have a dream speech, without quoting portions of the speeches. Ries42 (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Regrettably, these two tweets were not as influential as the Gettysburg Address or the "I Have a Dream" speech. What important context is lost by describing them as 'a series of derisive tweets regarding bullying of nerds.'? PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course they're not as influential. That wasn't my point, the point was to show by analogy that there is context lost through paraphrasing. Of course this is always the case, but most of the time it isn't that big of an issue. The context lost is the actual messages that he wrote. We can either spend 2-3 paragraphs analyzing exactly what he meant, how he said it, etc. etc., or... we can just post the tweets in question and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. The tweets ARE the context lost. Ries42 (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) becuase they are not 'a series of derisive tweets regarding bullying of nerds' - they are a series of twits calling out gamergaters using the metaphor of "bullying nerds". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Unproductive. Do not revert as per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement. Gamaliel (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bullying is a metaphor now? Weedwacker (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Perhaps you should take a Lit 101 class. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC) I again note you are not being appropriately civil with other editors. Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That issue aside, do you have a reliable source for the statement that Biddle's tweets are "a series of twits calling out gamergaters using the metaphor of 'bullying nerds'" rather than what the plain (verifiable) language of them actually says? Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not advocating that we call out the metaphor in the article, but neither will we use an inappropriately trimmed quote to misrepresent that the twit was about bullying nerds rather than gamergate -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

In the interest of explaining myself- I didn't believe that was the best description of the series of tweets, I was just reinstating DHeywards edit because I believed a summary was better than the exact quotes. Apologies if this was inappropriate. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree with TRPoD often; however, I believe we're in agreement here that it is better to just quote the tweets at issue and then follow with analysis from the sources of their meaning than trying to skirt around the issue and some how paraphrase them without just stating what was said. Ries42 (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

GG to be covered on Nightline tonight

[1]. It'll be up online here [2] by tomorrow at the latest. --MASEM (t) 03:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is ABC's transcript:

When Jumping into Gamergate Turns into Fearing For Your Life -By JUJU CHANG (@JujuChangABC) and KATIE YU.

And now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go away and read it! --TS 07:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Some of the stuff on page 2 of that we should look to add about the industry response. I could have sworn I've read from a high quality RS that there are a number of journalists upset that the major game co's have not really addressed anything in relationship to GG, including the issues of sexism that have come out (as described here). Also the fact that there's one quoted GG supporter expressing what I believe is a common issue regarding Sarkeesian (but not a BLP issue). --MASEM (t) 07:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I copied the link to the ABC transcript to Talk:Anita Sarkeesian in case it's useful there. I think you make a good point about ABC Nightline's declaration here:

"Nightline” reached out for comment, multiple times, to gaming companies such as Rockstar Games and Ubisoft to ask about the way women are portrayed in their games but have received no response."

Now that by itself would be a little too thin for my liking, because after all it's a stock journalistic statement indicating that at least they tried to get industry comment, and so its absence should not be read as a case of unbalanced journalism.

But I also recall that others have commented on how rare industry comment has been. Overall that topic may rise to the level of significance where we would want to devote space to it. --TS 07:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the Adobe/Gawker sources explained it. It's a lose/lose scenario for every company that has commented regardless of what they say so far. Adobe, specifically, was skewered. There is no upside for any company to comment. Rather, most of the major companies have women in prominent positions and highlight it (a la Intel and others). Their bottom line is profit so controversy is what they avoid. --DHeyward (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Getting the Swatting reports right

We seem to have had a hell of a time reading and reporting what The Guardian is saying about the Swatting attacks.

I've made this edit to clearly identify 8chan as "a hub of the [Gamergate] movement". As I discussed elsewhere, attribution is a difficult matter when there is no movement, per se, just a heap of horrible events, pace Guardian.

The fact that 8chan is where many of the more distasteful and newsworthy activities of Gamergate are organised is material to the topic. We can leave the business of parsing the names of 8chan subforums to offsite venues. We're definitely not going to play the "it's not Gamergate unless somebody mentions the hashtag" game. --TS 05:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The piece is extremely misleading. The picture, for instance, is not related to the instances. It's stock. It also uses the term "successful" for one of the SWATing attempts because Portland had 20 officers pass through the scene. PPD said it wasn't successful and no SWAT teams were sent and it was quickly verified as false. It talks about a random SWAT callout in Utah but it's not clear that was a "SWATing" call or whether just a recount of a random SWAT team. Most importantly, there is no corroboration of the caller to gamergate. In other words, it's a lot of hype. Both "targets" seemed to be aware of the attempt and neither were featured in our article before the calls but are now referred to as notable anti-GG figures but the caller is another anonymous but presumed gamergate supporter. --DHeyward (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

First, just because police didn't show up or went to the wrong door, it's still SWATing - the hoax calls were made, we have no reason to doubt that, but at least in the latter case, the people had given their local police the heads up this might happen. Second, even assuming the most possible good faith that no one honestly on the side of the GG ethics play is involved with baphomet or 8chan or the swats, the fact that the swats targeted people that have been identify as GG critics before shows how poorly that GG can defend itself when it has no structure or authority to assure who is really on their side and who is not; this is, as Tony points out, a huge flaw that most analysis have caught, in that this has been a movement hijacked by more malicious elements and they continue to refuse to move away or structure themselves to separate themselves from the negative elements. And the fact that this is still happening is a problem too. --MASEM (t) 06:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Mildly apropos this, I believe we do already have reliable sources in the article for the fact that Gamergate started as a harassment campaign. One of their few PR successes was getting some people concerned about journalistic ethics to hold their noses and jump on board. But that's already in the article. --TS 06:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

First, I never said it wasn't SWATing, rather it was not successful as it was described in that particular article. The very definition of success is a SWAT team responding. That didn't happen and portland police say it wasn't successful. The characterization of success is just one of the misleading elements of that source. GamerGate can't defend itself as it doesn't appear to be a movement in any real sense of that word - there doesn't appear to be a way to even identify members. They have been relegated to a role of Bogeyman. The fact that it is so disorganized that it can't be distinguished from random trolling leaves one wondering what it means to be anti-GG at this point and how are anti-GG people being targeted? If we haven't already named them, are they really "notable anti-GG critics" after an event but not before? I'd propose noting events and not people at this point, lest we find ourselves as being part of the problem. --DHeyward (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I moved some discussion of what 8chan was and how some GG moved there up a bit higher (under the Gamergate Hashtag), as 8chan's role becomes important in relationship to the Streisand Effect; that wasn't removed, just moved to where it was more appropriate. --MASEM (t) 06:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well caught. We now have far more sources on 8chan than we had before Christmas. Thank you, Santa! --TS 06:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, 8chan has gotten into a lot of trouble (not just GG related) over the last several days, and I expect we'll see more harsh words about it as those stories get around. --MASEM (t) 07:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Are we using the Washington Post's recent piece on 8chan? [3] It's quite recent but ties a lot of previously disparate elements together. --TS 07:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

We seem to be really terrible at reporting what The Guardian said. Once more I've had to restore what they actually said about the relationship between 8chan and Gamergate. This isn't some random board, it's strongly associated with Gamergate. --TS 16:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And this time I reverted you. You keep readding it, but it is CLEAR that the Guardian is describing with that section what 8chan is to an audiance that probably has never heard of it before. Continually putting it there is clearly an agenda based edit. We describe 8chan in depth elsewhere AND in its own WP article. It doesn't need to be there. If you want to add it further, put it in the description of 8chan or where the movement is discussed. Thank you. Ries42 (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears that there is an attempt to blame not-gamergate for the swatting which the reliable sources attribute to Gamergate. Why are we second guessing reliable sources? Hipocrite (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I should think we all here share the same agenda as The Guardian: to explain clearly to people who want to know the connection between the Swattings and Gamergate. That is why The Guardian says what it says, and why we should say it too. --TS 16:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The wording the Guardian source (outside of the title line) carefully does not say GG is responsible for the Swat. They say antiGG were swatted, they say that the boards these swats were organized from co-habit boards that GG refuges from 4chan have been using. They do not say "GG supporters are swatting", but they are leaving that likely conclusion to be left to the reader. If anything, they make it clear that this is only a segment of GG that might be involved. It's also clear from newer sources that 8chan, as a whole (not just baphomet) has become a central point for the organization and planning of things like harassment, doxxing, etc., not just that tied to GG. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I broadly support that reasoning. State the relationship. --TS 16:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian says "linked to the Gamergate movement", not "linked to the Gamergate controversy" or "linked to events happening in Gamergate". They specifically link swatting to the movement. Woodroar (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tony Sidaway: I agree that we share the same agenda, to explain clearly the connection between the swattings and Gamergate. I disagree that using an inline, implied, "explanaion" is making it clearer. "baphomet" and "8chan" are two different things, although connected. To use an analogy, you can correctly say that "The Earth" is a hub for Gamergate, because Gamergate occurs within some subsection of "The Earth". Someone on "The Earth" did X. Does that mean Gamergate did X? No. But if you say "X was coordinated in the "The United States", a subnation on "The Earth" planet, a hub of the Gamergate movement" you would be technically correct and may or may not be implying something without explicitly stating it. As editors it is our job to deconstruct the actual, explicit allegations that are important and completely, and clearly explain them. We explain what 8chan is, and how it is a hub of the movement, in a different section where we have the opportunity to go into depth and clearly explain what that means. The Guardian article doesn't have that opportunity, and frankly, a little sloppily, tries to do so in a way that leaves room for misunderstanding and implication that may or may not be intended. If the Guardian said "baphomet" is a hub of the movement, then you would have an explicit link to source. We don't source by implication though, no matter how reliable the source. Ries42 (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely "linked" to the movement because the swat came to anti-GG people. It doesn't say it was done "by" the movement. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I dislike using the "movement" language where there is no accountability; Gamergate as we write about it is just a sequence of one ghastly thing after another done by people to people for hideously distorted and pointless justifications, because that's pretty much how all our reliable sources see it. Either way, the reliable sources nearly all say this is part of the horrifying litany that is Gamergate, and the link is 8chan. I think we should make the link clear. That's the entire and sole purpose for which I opened this discussion section. We are really very bad at doing this, and I suspect some of that may be because there's this false idea that somehow we can authoritatively rule in or out Gamergate, by asking a spokesperson or something. --TS 17:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you dislike using "movement" language. However, reliable sources do use it in that form. Gamergate can refer to many things. When writing about it on WP, we need to be exact as to what is meant in a specific usage so as not to be confusing. Using implied language is not exact. While you are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to force WP to mold to it. Ries42 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And it's getting a bit day when people are seriously saying that Baphomet and 8chan as distinct entities. 8chan is an image board and baphomet is essentially a subfolder of that board in which certain activities are coordinated. Making that kind of distinction is like saying WP:AN and Wikipedia are distinct. The same users can post anywhere; the only difference is the name and the kind of post allowed. --TS 17:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Using wikipedia as an analogy doesn't quite work. Reddit is a more apt analogy. "baphomet" is to "8chan" what a subreddit is to "reddit". If something happened in the subreddit "GamerGhazi" which is very clearly NOT a part of the "gamergate movement", we can make an interesting implication, can't we? "X was coordinated in "GamerGhazi," a subforum of reddit, a hub of the [gamergate] movement." That line is completely and technically correct. The implication is that X was done by the gamergate movement. But the facts above clearly show that the movement is not explicitly linked to "GamerGhazi," if anything, "GamerGhazi" is completely opposed to the movement known as Gamergate. The same exact implication is made in the Guardian article, and without the explicit clarification of what "baphomet" is to the movement. Is it a part of it? You cannot definitively answer that based on the language within the Guardian because its unclear. That's why your edit doesn't clarify the situation, it just muddles it more. Ries42 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Tony, my issue is that language you are adding to the article is vulnerable to a misleading interpretation. "[S]watting attempts were coordinated through the "baphomet" subforum of 8chan, a board which had become a hub of Gamergate" can be interpreted as meaning that either 8chan or baphomet is a hub of Gamergate . The former of these is correct and the latter is not. We can do better. Starke Hathaway (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source recount of GamerGate

This guardian piece is a history of GamerGate. It appears much more objective in covering various viewpoints than the current or draft article. It seems odd that our article would be so divergent from this sources version in tone and content. They managed to avoid 'misogyny'. Are we on the wrong side of history? --DHeyward (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The article concludes that Gamergate became a magnet for sexist bullies who drowned out any substantive points. Well, actually, that's pretty much what our article says — that there were some people with good intentions, but they were long ago overwhelmed by misogynistic trolls who ensured that the movement's enduring public image would be of an angry, bigoted, incoherent lynch mob.

Avoiding a word that a vast number of other reliable sources use repeatedly to describe the movement based on the fact that a single source didn't use the word, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to be supportable. Moreover, "misogyny" is a synonym for "sexism" when that sexism displays prejudice against women. "Sexist bullies" who specifically oppose women are... yes, misogynist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah north you kill all of the fun RetΔrtist (разговор) 06:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

But seriously, the article concludes that Gamergate is unlikely to die – it will simply mutate. The article lists all of the grievances of the culture aspect of the 'weird, gay indie devs' and the patron supports etc. --RetΔrtist (разговор) 06:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a fine source, and very much in line with our article. There are many more ways of describing misogyny than using a single word. "Gamergaters seemed angry about ... the increasing number of women playing and featuring in video games" is a pretty effective way of implying that misogyny is in there. It's also a facet of Gamergate that generated a lot of activity and caused a lot of harm. This is why our sources write about misogyny a lot. --TS 06:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yea, the source doesn't counter anything in the article, it just starts from the idea of the movement, instead of the harassment. As I've offered before, we might want to think that this might be better written from that perspective (of the movement, creating controversy due to both their ideals and the means they (or others using the name) have done) but there's no pressing need at the moment to do that. --MASEM (t) 06:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Starting from that perspective would greatly improve the article. That was my point. The actions in a timeline are not disputable. Their relevance and role and meaning. though, is the difference. This source covers everything we cover but relates it in much more of a historical way from the viewpoints of the actor, rather than a characterization of the actor. --DHeyward (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we can use this to expand on the "culture war" section, as Retartist mentions above, this discusses the hostility to devs who are making non-mainstream video games as a motivating factor, which isn't touched on much in the current article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I should have made the distinction: gamergate doesn't care that these weird "deep" games are being made but that they are receiving too much coverage by journalists when the games are one step above a choose your own adventure book or that the latest Call of Duty won’t let you shoot nameless baddies - but instead ask you to talk about your feelings. --RetΔrtist (разговор) 11:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec) It's not just the word, it's the entire tone and substance of the narrative. That would have been an excellent WP article on this topic. It describes the start, buildup and demise of GG and reserves misogynistic activities for its chaotic end. Contrary to NBSB, misogyny is not a synonym for sexism. I don't disagree with the source at all. Our article isn't even close to that article in content or tone, though. Our article is a very different narrative. It's apparent to even an uninvolved reader which version is neutral in tone and content and it isn't WP. --DHeyward (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not how the English language works. Sexism: prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. Misogyny: the hatred or dislike of women or girls. So yes, if one is widely known for viciously-sexist attacks on women in video gaming, they will likely — and entirely fairly — be described as "misogynist." They have demonstrated behavior which indicates they hate or dislike women or girls.

You are correct that they are not strictly synonyms — for example, sexism can be unintentional, in which case it would not be misogynist — but that is obviously not the case here. The wide, wide array of reliable sources which specifically use that word are irrefutable, and suggesting that a single article which doesn't use the word, but which clearly expresses the anti-female prejudice inherent to Gamergate, means that we should remove or downplay the word, is simply a misuse of the source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, forget the word and I already knew I was correct. The tone in that article is that sexism (and tropes as an extension) has always been an element of gaming and only one part of gamergate. There are intentional female tropes in all media. The fact that you lump all intentional depictions of women in a sexist role as misogyny is a fundamental misunderstanding of language and perhaps why the tone of the article is so far off the NPOV mark. --DHeyward (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you're conflating two related issues: sexism in video games, which as critics such as Sarkeesian have readily pointed out also exists in other media where it is also criticised; and the misogyny of the death and rape threats and other attacks on women in gaming. This article is mainly about the latter. --TS 07:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not conflating it. Rape and death threats are easily defined as misogyny. The bulk of GamerGate, according to this source, is not about rape and death threats. That's why there is a difference in tone and coverage. This the key distinction: gamers are upset about the focus of journalists that try and fix sexism in games. In addition there are the rape and death threats. Those are two separate issues. We merge them in the article and it's clear from NBSB's explanation as to why. The source does not merge them. There is a clear demarcation between sexist depictions of women in games and actual threats to women in the gaming industry. One is sexism, the other misogyny. We don't distinguish and treat the group that seeks to keep gaming unchanged as the same people that are threatening death and rape. That is a huge distinction between the Guardian source for history and our article. --DHeyward (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources — including The Guardian — do not treat them separately, because the two are one and the same by Gamergate's own choice not to become seriously organized. Our article extensively discusses the impossibility of separating potentially-legitimate concerns from misogynistic garbage spread by sexist bullies because Gamergate has chosen to do everything anonymously on chanboards. As The Guardian article you cite discusses, the two cannot be separated — they are permanently attached at the hip and the very word "Gamergate" is permanently tainted. While one might wish for Gamergate to be about legitimate concerns with ethics in gaming journalism, it factually is not about that due to the fact that it was launched by, as The Guardian notes, unfounded accusations about Zoe Quinn, which were seized upon by an army of internet dwellers ... to police a woman’s sexual behaviour under the guise of promoting “ethics in games journalism”. The Guardian appropriately treats that claim as a facade hiding an ulterior motive of attacking Quinn.

You state that We don't distinguish and treat the group that seeks to keep gaming unchanged as the same people that are threatening death and rape. This is just so, because there is no way to distinguish them and there is plenty of evidence that there are many of the latter among the former. Not all, certainly, but many. Because Gamergate has chosen to be anonymous, leaderless and intentionally uncontrollable, there is no authority to claim responsibility for or disavow actions. Thus, anything which claims to be Gamergate is Gamergate, for all intents and purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Again this source manages to do what you believe is unpossible. If you cannot distinguish arguments, what they are saying and who is saying it, you may want to take a step back. The Guardian did it and didn't break a sweat or have to do linguistic gymnastics as you appear to do. --DHeyward (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

" Soon, an army of internet dwellers had seized on this opportunity to police a woman’s sexual behaviour under the guise of promoting “ethics in games journalism”." It does not, nor does it even try to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That's actually a good quote we should look at maybe replacing a quote from a less notable commentator with that. Could fit into either the Debate over ethics allegations section or the Misogyny and antifeminism section. — Strongjam (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, the article you cite notes that there are several arguments being made as part of Gamergate, but it does not suggest, as you claim, that the people threatening death and rape are entirely separate from the people who seek to keep gaming unchanged. Indeed, it notes "sexist bullies" are responsible for destroying the movement, who presumably want to keep gaming unchanged and are threatening death and rape. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

So adopting that tone, language and narrative is okay with you? It wouldn't take much to rewrite using that source as a template if you are indifferent to it. --DHeyward (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If by "adopting the tone" you mean that because this one report does not specifically use the word "misogynistic" that we toss out all of the other sources that do use that term and remove misogynistic from the article, no. I do not agree to that at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, not that at all. This source has the misogynistic attacks that arose out of Gamergate. We can certainly use that word to describe that aspect of Gamergate. --DHeyward (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I just remembered who Helen Lewis is.

"It reminds me of the screenwriters’ adage: no villain knows he’s the villain. He thinks he’s the hero in a different film."

I think it's wonderful if more and more people are enjoying her well written pieces. --TS 09:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I did. As politicians must know, you can knock down factual error after factual error but it means nothing if the narrative backbone remains intact. Cuts deep. --DHeyward (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I know you can't possibly be seriously proposing that we repeat the debunked lies of trolls, so I think at this point we are no longer engaged in meaningful, mutually comprehensible communication about how to edit the article. --TS 10:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh no. The guardian piece is not repeating any lies that I'm aware of. It's tone, content and narrative are much more neutral depictions of the same topic. I propose adopting it. --DHeyward (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I was responding to your apparent admiration for the notion that politicians know that a false narrative sometimes persists in the face of cold facts.

I love the article. I love ours, too. Ours has far more detail and, unlike this one, is the result of the Wikipedia process. It's fine to love both. If you like this Guardian article but not ours, I wonder if that's because it's written to be witty and entertaining and thus doesn't dwell on the darker side so much. That not what we exist for.

We write about five months of death and rape threats, failed attempts to put pressure on advertisers, women's lives ruined by constant bullying, and everything else, because that's what happened. --TS 00:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of "movement" in lede

@TheRedPenofDoom: You are arguing over something that is settled. While it can be said that many reliable sources do not talk about, or give credence to the movement, many others do or at the very least refer to the existence of a movement. You've tried to edit the lede twice three times to remove it. Why? For your (inevitable) reply of PROVEIT:

The Guardian: "Five months on, the movement has faded to a background hum." The Guardian refers to a movement.

NYTimes: "That disclosure galvanized a movement on Twitter among people who used the #gamergate hashtag to attack journalistic ethics in the video game press." NYTimes calls it a movement.

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." The Columbia Journalism Review refers to it as a movement.

Since when is TheRedPenofDoom's opinion more important than The Guardian, The New York Times, or the Columbia Journalism Review? Ries42 (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tony Sidaway: I'm hoping to avoid requesting for sanctions and the Admin Noticeboard for this. If we can settle it in TALK, that would be my preference. Please do not just revert my request for RedPen to stop again. Thank you. Ries42 (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

[you mean the " strange, rambling attack " is now back in play because it was mention once in this piece? or that "Over the course of the autumn, Gamergaters seemed angry about many things: the increasing number of women playing and featuring in video games; the sometimes overly cosy friendships between games developers and the journalists who covered their work; and the meaninglessness of “gamer” as an identity in an age where your grandma can play a £2.99 puzzler on her iPhone." is an actual description of a "movement"? and CJR "But if readers are still mostly confused by what it is, who composes it, and what they want, that’s because coverage of the so-called movement - See more at: CJR on Gamergate -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

As I've noted before, there are about 25% more hits on "gamergate movement" than "gamergate controversy". Yes, it's unorganized, its motives as a movement are highly in question, etc. but the group of people that support this are called in RSes as a movement. As a neutral source, we should prioritize the fact they call themselves a movement over any other sources, after which we can include all the criticism about it later. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

until you show they are "gamergate movement" and not "so-called gamergate movement" or "gamergate 'movement'" or "shadowy and threatening movement" ghits claims are pretty worthless -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

worthless As are your claims that a movement does not exist, no matter how much you want that to be true for whatever reason. Weedwacker (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources do address the fact that a "movement" does not actually exist as we cover in our article Gamergate_controversy#Gamergate_organization . There are sources that use the term, but mostly as a shorthand and not under any analysis of whats happening as a legitimate "movement" Archive 13 discussion. Given that our article covers the fact that sources specifically have come up with "its not a movement" we shouldnt be using the shorthand in the lead.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, that's picking and choosing the sources that claim it's not a movement. Other sources, like this ID'd above, call it a movement, and they themselves call it a movement. To be neutral, we must assume, for a brief bit of the article, that what the GG say they want (from reliable sources) is 100% legitimate, so when they have called themselves a movement, that's how we should call them. After we've done that short bit (since the weight of sources is far in the other direction), then we can include all that criticizism of that that is baiscally "Well you can't be a movement if you have no leadership or organization". But we have to be neutral and stay with neutral language, and if they call themselves a movement, then we must respect that. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

While it is "picking and choosing" it is picking and choosing the sources that specifically analyse the organization and structure and finding that they say "No movement" and giving them weight over sources that may happen to use the term as a shorthand. Utilizing sources out of context is inappropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If the group that this article is basically about is calling themselves a "movement" (with sources that support that point), we legitimately call them a movement, even if we call them self-described like that. The fact others have analyzed that and say "no, you're not really a movement", does not change the fact they, and by neutrality, we, consider themselves a movement. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, the groups claims about what they are and what they do does not impact the article when the sources review and say otherwise. We are not here to play white knights to save poor poor gamergaters reputation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

But we're also not here to attack them. When they say something about themselves that we can source - they call themselves a movement, they claim to have ethics issues - we remain neutral and report that as is, and then discuss how critics have attacked that stance. To ignore what they call themselves and only use what critics say is purposely ignoring sourcable facts to swing the POV of the article. Saying they call themselves a movement is in no way being a white knight to their cause, only to our neutrality. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "so called movement" /"self identified movement" . We can do that. But we cannot give credence to their self proclamations that has been specifically debunked by reliable third parties when they have looked at the claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That is the opinion of those sources (criticism), not fact. We present both sides of the issue neutrally, treating the GG claims about themselves legitimately, and then presenting the counterclaims and criticism as legitimate criticism as well. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't have to treat claims about themselves as truth, self-identified is fine here if there is serious debate about whether it is a movement (so-called I think is too much of an expression of doubt.) If they claimed to be our alien overlords we wouldn't write "They are our alien overlords, although commentators disagree." — Strongjam (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, they are self-identified truths about themselves that we can source through strong RS. This is not pulling from SPS sourcing, nor is it making their claims about others (eg regarding BLP) as true. Only they have self-identified themselves as such, and that even despite a wealth of criticism that says they really aren't, we stay neutral by using the terminology they want to use about themselves. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

again, GG's "truths" hold no water for us. Many of their "truths" have been completely and repeatedly debunked and they still claim the world is flat. And it is only some of them claiming there is a "movement" we cannot falsely claim that they speak for all GG - because, you know, they are not an actual "movement" with a platform and identified goals or leaders to speak for them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. As a neutral source, GG's claims about themselves and their outcomes that we can source to RS are key pieces of documentation that we should be covering as their side of the story is not insignificant to this topic. Their claims about others without evidence, we have to tread extremely carefully per BLP for certain, but when we have sources that say that GG claims it is a movement, we treat that statement as a fact. Even if those claims are factually wrong but they insist that is what they are about, we report that way. We're not here to judge them , right or wrong. Failure to give this legitimacy to what has been reliably sourced is basically eliminating one side of the issue, and that is not neutral at all. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality requires us to avoid stating disputed assertions as fact. — Strongjam (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

And its even more than that. We aren't commenting on what the movement entails, or is. Even the RS that disagree with the movement's goals, or believe that the movement is being disingenuous, they still refer to it AS a movement. Movement is about as neutral as you get. Ries42 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

again the fact that we dont have an actual word for "clusterfuck of anons being angry over a million disparate things on the interwebs and viciously harassing people under the same hashtag" and so they have sometimes defaulted to "movement" doesnt mean that we must accredit the clusterfuck as a "movement" when we have specific sources that have analysed it and said "not a movement" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT. No one is saying you don't have sources that say "not a movement". They don't suddenly make it so all the ones that say "it is a movemnt" PUFF and disappear. Ries42 (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

An unorganized movement can still be a movement. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A leaderless movement can still be a movement. Ries42 (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please provide sources focusing on the the organization and structure of GG and says "yep, a movement". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You are literally the only one who doesn't see it. The point is, you're inserting yourself too much into this particular argument TRPoD. You've made a value judgment and you're editing with that in mind instead of looking to the reliable sources. No one is saying that your reliable sources are wrong. There are many reliable sources that say what you've decided to push as your agenda. But even in those sources, they acknowledge something that you refuse to. That is not even counting the reliable sources that don't agree with your personal interpretation. I feel like I have said this before, but I'll say it again. You're entitled to your opinion. You're not entitled to force WP to mold to your opinion. Ries42 (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

again, WP:PROVEIT that there is analysis that it is a "movement" as we have sources stating otherwise and the otherwise is covered in the article and the lead needs to reflect the body. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There are 3 sources above that WP:PROVEIT. This is probably the weakest thing to be arguing over. Weedwacker (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I covered how each of those three actually does NOT support the claim (or has been declared as weak source that we should not use) If thats all you got, then we are indeed over. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenofDOOM: You did no such thing. Maybe in your mind you did, but I'm done trying to convince you that the sky is blue and the sun is hot. I have proven it. Several times. To everyone but you. Your standard of proof is off, not my evidence. Just to bury you some more, from the Draft:

Writing in The Daily Telegraph in the wake of those incidents, Bob Stuart summed up the hashtag's troubles, saying "GamerGate has since swelled into an unwieldy movement with no apparent leaders, mission statement, or aims beyond calling out 'social justice warriors'. ... When members of the games industry are being driven from their houses and jobs, threatened, or abused, it makes GamerGate’s claim that it is engaged in an ethical campaign appear laughable."[13] Unwieldy movement. But still a movement.

Singal was critical of the movement's lack of organization and leadership commenting on their "refus[al] to appoint a leader or write up a platform".[14] Its very difficult to be critical of something that doesn't exist. Clearly Singal must have made it up in his head, since he has the audacity to disagree with TRPoD.

Christopher Grant, editor-in-chief of Polygon, said that Gamergate has remained an amorphous and leaderless movement consisting solely of the hashtag so that the harassment can be conducted without any culpability.[112] Yawn, this is getting old. Its like everyone in the world understands what a movement is but you. Go to the toilet, see if you can have a movement there. I'm sure you'll post it here for us all to look at and then tell me to WP:PROVEIT again.

After a time, others joined in the movement, claiming that GamerGate was about “ethics in game journalism.” It’s a twisted warping of the movement’s beginnings, which were based entirely around invading a developer’s private life, harassing her, and making false accusations about a journalist. In fact, no journalists to this point were actually targeted. Pretty odd, don’t you think? Seriously. All I'm doing is Ctrl+F "movement" and following the god damn links. This isn't even hard. Ries42 (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

a group of anonymous posters who are ferociously angry about something new every week is not a "movement " - its just a chan board. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion has already been established on the topic and Wikipedia reports on the sources and not your disdain for the topic. If that's the best response you can come up with to all of those links, I guess that means we're done with this discussion. Weedwacker (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

And if this article was titled "The World According to Red Pen" you might be able to include that in the article. But it isn't. But I'll be sure to watch out for your proposal to rename the article accordingly. Ries42 (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

the world according to me and people like Oxford scholars -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I quite frankly don't see it either. There may be such a thing as the "movement" but it is non-notable. Practically every recent source describes it only in terms of the surrounding controversy. We describe things by what makes them notable, and that's clearly not the (incredibly ill-defined) "movement" but the controversy surrounding it. Other things barely get any coverage in comparison. Cupidissimo (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"Movement" is definitely a poorly chosen word that we should avoid using. We have several sources attesting that it's simply a hashtag that can be used by anyone, and that this has caused some of the controversy. Shii (tock) 20:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Even considering the hashtag, there is still a movement, but as critics have well pointed out, the only form of organization they have shown is using the GG hashtag to brand their complaints, and hashtag-based activism can be one of the easiest things to be taken over if there's little organization to back it. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Shii. I don't see the problem with just saying 'Some Gamergate supporters'. As far as social movements go it's hard to call it that when a big part of the story is how it's lack of structure has made it difficult for journalists to cover exactly what it's about and to attribute actions to it. Off-topic a bit, but perhaps we're witnessing the birth pains of a movement that will coalesce around cultural issues in video games.— Strongjam (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on this. Firstly, if quite a number of reliable sources cast doubt on, or explicitly deny, that there is a movement, we should probably look for a different word (which is a shame, I think, because it does seem to be a very loosely organised movement of some kind). If on the other hand, a large proportion of our sources use the word movement fairly consistently, we should definitely consider using (with precision and clarity) the term "Gamergate movement".

Having said that, before using the word in the lede of the article, even casually, we should probably find enough material to write a section about Gamergate considered as a movement. As it stands, we're going to confuse a lot of people by referring to some mysterious "movement" in the lede but not clarifying for what we mean in the body.

Finally, we should look for, and hopefully find and be able to cite, articles of the quality of the one Jesse Singal wrote after earnestly investigating Gamergate. If there is a Gamergate movement (and I suspect there may be) it's articles like this we need _at a bare minimum_ in order to be able to say what we mean as an encyclopaedia when we use the term "Gamergate movement." --TS 20:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A thing to consider is that most of the articles that are strong critical of GG being a movement are written as "They may describe themselves as a movement, but these are reasons they are not how we would normally call a movement due to a lack of organization, etc"; they don't come out "GG is not a movement" but instead beg the question if they really are. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Which is why we should be careful with how we use the term. Terms and language should be used in ways that most readers would understand them. Also, that's not begging the question. Sorry pet peeve. — Strongjam (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Strongjam shares my own grammar Nazi tendencies with respect to the term "begging the question", I see! Do let's see if we can funds enough material about Gamergate as a movement. Then maybe we can define what we mean, and then write a section, and then use it all over the article. At this stage, I'm a bit pessimistic about the likelihood of enough material being available, but we should make a start. --TS 21:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

One note, there already is a lot of information about "a movement" in the article as is. It might need to be reorganized, but just as a thought experiment, here is the current draft article and words that are used in the lede, followed by the number of times they're used in the article.

• misogyn- (includes misogynistic and misogyny): 17 times in the article (+8 references, +1 title)
• sexism: 6 times in the article (+4 in references)
• culture (used 3 times in the lede): 11 times in the article (+4 in references)
• Quinn: 33 times in the article (+14 in references)
• Wu: 9 times in the article (+3 in references)
• Sarkeesian: 13 times in the article (+8 in references)
• movement: 20 times in the article (+2 in references)

Maybe if we want to take the word movement out of the lede, we should remove it from the article. The lede is supposed to reflect the article. A word used more times than "sexism," "culture," or any form of the word misogyny, despite the opening sentence basically being: "This is a topic about sexism and misogyny in video game culture" should probably not just be removed... Just my two cents. Ries42 (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You're losing me here. What does the above comment have to do with whether Gamergate is a movement? --TS 21:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that, even if informally, many reliable sources refer to it as a movement and we have done so as well in the article. Ries42 (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That is probably more evidence that there has been a subtle push to misrepresent the random acts of anger and harassment as a "movement" than there should be in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Some comments were edited to restore comments prior to being alter without permission by a user who was neither of the original users. See here and here. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I noticed that Tony did this earlier and was very upset. Would this normally be a sanctionable offense? Ries42 (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Plausible, though that is something I am avoiding and since the content has not been altered again, I do not wish to take up. The only thing I would like to say is that I do not give permission to any user at this moment to remove my note above and this comment. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Is "movement" really an issue?

I apologize for (perhaps presumptuously) starting a subsection here, but is "it's a movement" or "it's not a movement" really an issue? I mean, across Wikipedia, we have Boy Scouts of America and Girl Scouts of the USA as well as reformers and hippies all described as "movements". Some have a clear-cut organizational structure with member rosters, and others don't, all based on reliable sources. It seems that "movement" has a sufficiently broad definition to cover all of these...um...movements. So why is it an issue? Again, sorry for the new section but if there's a clear reason to argue over it, feel free to close this section, I won't revert. Woodroar (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

there are some who appear to take the necessity of GG being called a "movement" very seriously- otherwise the random angry rants and harassment appear to be nothing more than angry ranters and harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a small issue to be honest. After reviewing our sources many of them do say 'movement'. If birthers and truthers are movements, I guess I don't see why gamergate can't be either, although it's a very confused and disjointed one. — Strongjam (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Birthers and Truthers have a coherent (if absurd) place to which they are "moving" - convincing people that: Obama is in fact a furriner and not an Amurican / the hijacked planes were just a cover-up for a government conspiracy. GG is just vile vile harassment, "but ethics", baby seals, incoherent claims, thrashing at a new random targets every week. No "moving" towards anything. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, sorry, that is not a proven fact, and in fact there's evidence against that. That might be the perception of many, but we don't write factually as if the public opinion was factually correct. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That is the perception of the reliable sources whose perception is what we follow. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

We do not follow perception. That perception will get the weight in the critical analysis of GG, but we do not treat perception as fact. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed WP:UNDUE and WP:V? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

RedPen, please just do a reread of the sources. Perhaps you're just working off dated information. Its getting silly though that you're really this bent out of shape about a word. A word that appears nearly universally in every reliable source. Why is it so important to you to remove it? Ries42 (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Nowhere does it say that WP takes the predominate opinion as fact. It says we will have the most predominate part of the article about that opinion, for certain, but we do not write as if that opinion was factual, right, or wrong, we just document that opinion. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not an "opinion" that GG is regarded as anything other than toxic morass of antifeminism-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

toxic morass That's certainly your opinion, and also a sick idea for a death metal band name, thanks for that one I might use it. Weedwacker (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, it is regarded as that, but that doesn't make factually true that it is a toxic morass. There is a big difference in how we have to write this article in that light, and failure to make that distinction harms our neutrality. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

because "factually" doxing and terrorist threats and vile vile harassment of women is "puppies and kitties and ice cream cones" and not "toxic"? "factually" no. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

We are not allowed to take that position at all as a neutral source. Morally, yes, harassment is toxic, but we're a neutral source, and cannot take a highly subjective term and use is as fact. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"We" are not "taking a position" other than to report what the reliable sources have determined - that the toxic harassment has completely tainted everything that GG has done or wishes to do in the future. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Which is an opinion that we definitely will include, but report as an opinion. We cannot take the position that that is the "right" opinion. Morally, I'm in full agreement but for writing neutrally we can't make that presumption. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:ASSERT there are no other credible alternate opinions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a needless argument. A movement is a group that operates together towards a goal or goals. Whether sources say they are fighting for ethics or for harassment they tend to attribute the actions to a group or member(s) of a group. It has also been described as a culture war... well there are sides in a culture war so obviously some people must be fighting over culture for it to be a culture war. It's not even like this is an anti/pro argument, as RS's from each side of the "ethics or harassment" conversation sometimes identify a group or movement. This is a silly fight over semantics. There's definitely a group, no matter how disorganized and leaderless, and they have goals, no matter how conflicted sources are over what they are. That's a movement. Weedwacker (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

even by your assertion GG is not a movement. There is no GG goal or goals - just random chaos on the interwebs and SWATTING with new targets every week. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly your opinion. Ries42 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Its what is stated in the source that you linked mere hours ago :Over the course of the autumn, Gamergaters seemed angry about many things: the increasing number of women playing and featuring in video games; the sometimes overly cosy friendships between games developers and the journalists who covered their work; and the meaninglessness of “gamer” as an identity in an age where your grandma can play a £2.99 puzzler on her iPhone." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is no movement, then there is no controversy, and this article should not exist. If there's nothing tying these series of events together that are outlined in this article, then it is just a series of random events. Please, start up the AfD. Weedwacker (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Even without a "movement" there is most certainly controversy about terrorist threats and doxing and vile vile harassment of women conducted under tag of "GG". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:03,' 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not really a controversy to that end - it is highly criticized and no one in any reliable source is challenging those as legitimate tools (even the GG supporters that are quoted in RS are shown critical of these approaches). Given how weighted the coverage is towards criticism instead of a back-and-forth controversy (like global warming), it makes sense the movement and criticism of the movement is the focus here. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Only "some" people who claim to be GG supporters are taking that position. SOME people claiming to be GG itself are conducting the toxic harassment. You cannot pull out those people as say that only these other people are GG - that would be OR and counter to all of the sources that lump assign GG to the vile vile harassment and say "and then there are also these 'but ethics' tag alongs" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, that's missing the big picture. At the start of GG, back in August, calling this a controversy when there was a lot words being thrown back and forth and the GG side was being taken with some seriousness, it was definitely a controversy. But time's progressed, and as many sources point out, the claims of GG have generally been dismissed as impractical or unwieldy and thus what the GG side has been saying has been generally ignored in the more recent months - instead the focus has been on the damage they've done to various people, the continues use of harassment and other tools that appear to be from malicious users that may or may not be associated with GG but using the name in that manner, and the fact the VG industry has had to turn inward, ask "how did we get here" and recognizing that they are partially responsible for sexism in the industry and now trying to fight that. That's not controversy, that's outright criticism of the GG group as a whole, because no one is counter-pointing these conclusions. Add google hit checks, and yes, everything we have is about the movement - not so much the details of the movement but the reactions to it. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

So you think it should be Gamergate harassment campaigns?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

As per Woodroar, this is a tempest over a teacup. The word "movement" doesn't seem to be unduly out of place - we have to use some word to describe the loosely-organized mess that is Gamergate, and I don't think "movement" makes any suggestion of significant cohesion. We describe the loose organization and the challenges this poses to presenting a coherent ideology and message. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is the dichotomy of identities. The article focus is on sexism and misogyny but that attribute isn't used to characterize individuals. We have named victims with nebulous assailants. On the other hand, named GG supporters are not misogynist or harassers (and not characterized as such). That makes it hard to conflate a mass of nameless trolls with a specific set of living people. Association through the term "movement" is problematic at best and a BLP issue at worse. We can't tie so-called leaders to the mob without running afoul of BLP policy. --DHeyward (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

there are no "leaders" - multiple sources verify that. there are some "cheerleaders" and people who some GG have lionized because they have stated "nasty feminists shouldnt intrude into boys video games", but that is not relevant point over whether or not GG is considered a "movement" by the reliable sources that have analyzed it from that perspective. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit to the draft by Singdavion

This discussion relates to this edit. A version of this text was posted by me as part of a greeting message at User talk: Singdavion. --TS 16:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

There are really two reasons for my edit, though I only mentioned one in my necessarily brief edit summary.

Firstly, as far as I'm aware, Knowyourmeme.com doesn't qualify as a reliable source for our purposes. To be sure, it's an award winning and popular website, like Wikipedia. But also like Wikipedia, it can't be assumed to have the reputation for editorial fact checking we expect of a reliable source (as far as I know).

Second, no matter how reliable a source is, single sources will inevitably have their own bias. We aim to counteract this factor by balancing the statements of multiple reliable sources. We would not recommend one single source as authoritative, as your edit seems to propose.

My reverting your edit should not be seen as the end of the matter. It's certainly conceivable that I'm wrong and that Know your meme is a reliable source, and then at the very least we could use it to help improve our article. --TS 16:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

He is continually attempting to reinsert without discussing. I think escalate at this point. I support at the very least he needs a timeout. While he may hold that opinion, its not the proper way to fix the article. If he wants a disclaimer, the only one I think could be supported is something along the lines of "This is still a developing issue. Some sources may report before all facts are available, and may be more unreliable than normal." But to say the entire article is a joke or wrong is just plainly untrue. Ries42 (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't come to such a quick conclusion. The third edit was a pure accident. Just excuse it. I haven't made anymore edits. No warning needed Singdavion (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --TS 17:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly true that we're still awaiting more considered, analytical coverage of the events described in this article. I hoped we could tag this article with template:Current but this topic simply doesn't qualify under the guidelines at Template: Current/doc.

It seems that our General_disclaimer must once again bear the weight of explaining that you shouldn't believe everything you read here (though of course we do our level best to achieve the highest standards). --TS 17:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding an alternative reading, or at least some warning to the reader

I'm assuming that we all understand the numerous issues of the article. I understand fully that Wikipedia has standards for the sources to be used in an article. But this article is not written in good faith. It is extremely biased because the sources it has decided to depend on are also biased. This isn't an argument. It's pretty obvious that most of the sources are either:

-Relying on yellow journalism to fabricate a story that will receive views

-Outright lying as a result of their condemnation of gaming as a whole

-Are not practicing good journalism by refusing to research a topic thoroughly

These sources are NOT following their standards for news and they should not be used in Wikipedia for this article. Please consider this. The general public will look here first. They will not choose to investigate further. They will not care. They will only see gaming as some utterly hateful community. Wikipedia has a massive influence on how the world thinks and putting this article up as a summary of this issue is completely against what Wikipedia stands for. This article is not published in good faith and that is utterly obvious.

PUT A WARNING at the top of the article that explicitly warns about the lack of neutrality, honesty, or reliability of the article/sources.

The reason I put the Know Your Memes article as the alternative is because they use many good sources and truthfully explain what is going on. Please consider this change. It's a small one but it will change everything and make it a respectable article. Singdavion (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

As it happens I don't agree that our sources are all biased and dishonest on this particular issue, but supposing I did, I don't think there's anything we could do about that. We rely on at least some reliable sources dissenting, and we note that dissent to the extent of its prominence.

This isn't an abstract issue to me, or to most of us. There can't be many people who don't, occasionally or even quite frequently, think the press and broadcasting institutions become something of an echo chamber and present a biased view almost in unison. We live with that. It's not up to Wikipedia to right wrongs.--TS 17:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that this isn't an issue of having to right great wrongs, and I also agree that Singdavion's notification isn't really proper. Besides, that's what we have the POV tag for. The issue, though, is that the article is written with a "right great wrongs" bent to it, where very involved/impacted/passionate editors are using the article not to write a neutral entry about a movement/event, but instead trying ti ensure that the article paints events with a very specific brush. Hiding behind "this is what reliable sources say" isn't really enough (especially given the cherry-picking that has occurred), but at some point we do need to address the elephant in the room. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

We can't right wrongs, but at the same time, when we know something is factually true and is being misrepresented/misreported by the mainstream sources, we can opt to not include the misrepresentation, though knowing we also cannot put in the factual correction if that fact is not represented in sources either; in such a case it is better to remain mum on the topic since the "truth" is not there; WP:V while a requirement for sourcing, does not mean that every piece of material that meets WP:V needs to be included particularly in light of the other major content policies. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)