Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Gamergate (harassment campaign). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

3-day protection

Due to immediate revert warring upon unprotection, I have re-protected this article for a 3 day period. Please use this time to come to some consensus here on the talk page. Thank you. Nandesuka (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

We did come to a consensus over many subjects. There are just a bunch of single purpose accounts whining that the consensus is against them. You just jumped in here out of nowhere to lock everything down again unprovoked.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I trust Nandesuka. As soon as the article opened up, there were a ton of POV edits made, some very large ones infact, and any that tried to curb the POV were immediately reverted by some of the most active POV pushers on this article. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some of the users here had a window of opportunity to shape the article into their POV before any of us that want to keep the neutrality could react. It will not happen again. --Torga (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not POV. It has been established multiple times on this page in the past 24 hours that because the pro-Gamergate side of the debate is not being recognized in reliable sources saying anything more about them is giving them undue weight. If anyone here is a POV pusher it is you two. This article is neutral because it reflects what reliable sources have to say about GamerGate. Just because you two, two very pro-Gamergate editors, don't like it does not mean the article is no longer not neutrally written.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

We have not come to an agreement save for a few issues, and it is still begs the question of being POV, so the tag is appropriate. That type of attitude is not conductive for consensus building. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You are not being neutral in this matter. I know you are doing your damnedest to try to get the pro-Gamergate people to stop hemming and hawing over every new change to the page because things are going their way. I'm tired of it, Masem. We all are. Your RFC is a sham. It's worded terribly and in a way that really shows you're trying to temper someone into stopping and it's ridiculous at this point.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we are not all tired of it. I, personally, am extremely contemptuous of Anita Sarkeesian and most of the other anti-Gamergaters involved, though I'm not really wild about the pro-Gamergate side either, but I welcome Masem's efforts at peacekeeping through diplomacy and neutrality. Tezero (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop bolding everything like you have a point. It actually has not been established, that is where there is a NPOV tag on it. Each lead change didn't have a consensus, it was made and anyone who tried to change it or revert it was immediately shot down by people trying to keep the article to one POV. Your last edit was a blatant POV push by stating it was less 'gamergate apologetic'. Hell, go look at WP:CONTROVERSY for a few minutes. Its not even just us two either, its plenty of editors that you disregard on this page. Your not fooling -anyone- Ryulong, not one person. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of established editors who have been entirely uninvolved in this article for the past several months are recognizing that #GamerGate is not a topic that those who support it are ever going to be satisfied with how this article will depict them. And multiple users on AN and here have said that the "compromise" lede written after a previous dispute earlier in the day did not reflect the stance reliable sources have taken on this. And Wikipedia:Controversial articles is an essay and not a strict policy or guideline that everyone else is doing their best to keep to, but the pro-GG camp editors like you and Torga keep complaining that it's not what they want it to say because Wikipedia cannot adequately present GamerGate's stance based on the reliable sources available.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, plenty of editors have said this is a POV pushed article, THAT IS WHY THERE IS A NPOV TAG ON THE ARTICLE. Hell, even the RS'es talk about what the pro-gamergate camp wants, so yes, there are RS'es, no matter what the hell you say. The only thing is, you are blatantly pushing a POV, so you won't let that go uncontested. You also know, that essays are good to go by right? Essays HELP, unlike you. Hell, you even just told Masem he has been doin a shit job, told the admin who locked it they were wrong (Not taking into account how you USED to be an admin), and are saying everyone is wrong except for your POV. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the RFC started by Masem above and look at all of the editors who have never touched this article or talk page until the RFC was publically listed. They are nearly all recognizing that there are not POV issues with this article because giving any more credence to the pro-GG side of the debate is a violation of WP:UNDUE. The POV tag does not mean jack squat in the long run because there's been zero actual discussion on fixing the POV that doesn't devolve into "I don't like how this is saying Gamergaters are bad". And I can freely disagree with people's actions regardless of them being an administrator, or myself having formely been one. That doesn't mean they have to do shit to address my concerns if they continue to disagree with me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I see plenty of split thoughts on the RFC up top, you are just trying to push one side. It is not Undue either, that has been debunked over and over, since RS'es talk about it. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOT A PLATFORM. Your making this your platform and pushing your POV. Its pretty obvious you don't care about anyone's decisions unless they line up with your POV, and have told two admins, who have only been helpful, that they are not doing a good job of letting you have your soapbox. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

How many of those "split thoughts" are coming from people who have been heavily invovled with this article and talk page. And it is indeed UNDUE to cut content that is critical of GamerGate so it doesn't spite GamerGate entirely. And still, I am allowed to disagree with other editors. They are administrators because they can be trusted with the block, delete, and protect tools. I clearly was not. If I'm not explicitly with GamerGate, then Gamergate thinks I am 100% against it. The article discusses the issues with ethics. It also discusses how people don't think they really mean it because no one can be sure what one GamerGater will say that another one won't.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong has requested that I reduce the protection level of this article to semiprotection. After reading through the recent discussion on WP:AN, I am inclined to do this. However, regardless of whether an editor can edit in the semi-protected state, I want to remind all editors that all pages related to Gamergate, including obviously this one, are under general sanctions. Any editor that fails to adhere to the normal editorial process may be subject to a number of sanctions, including but not limited to topic bans, blocks, or restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors.

Specifically, the wholesale revert warring that I saw going on has to stop. Please discuss all changes - including reverting to "the right version", where that version is whichever one you happen to like - on the talk page. I strongly urge you to frame the discussion sentence by sentence and source by source, and to focus firmly on the content rather than on the contributors. Anyone who cannot abide these restrictions will, I assure you, quickly find themselves topic-banned. Nandesuka (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If you do reduce it to semiprotection, please restore it to the length it was prior to the change to the full protection. This article still must be protected against possible BLP violations by new editors or editors from IP addresses.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You state the article is under general sanctions yet abide to a suggestion made by an user who has been constantly uncivil, biting noobs, outing admins for allegedly being SPAs, being completely biased and insulting everyone left and right. Loganmac (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've not outed anyone or been biased. Read WP:UNDUE.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think what everyone is trying to say is read WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:YESPOV Retartist (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

And WP:STRUCTURE as well Retartist (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BALASPS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.

WP:BALASPS is a small part of it, it means that while yes more anti-gg stuff should be there, it does not mean that we should take a side. IN fact we CANT take a side per

A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize.

Did you even read the whole NOPV page? Retartist (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You see, the issue here is that no one is giving the "pro-GG" side the time of day because they recognize that the movement began as a series of attacks on one woman and a false assumption that the only reason she would sleep with someone is to gain something from it and that they've accomplished nothing other than run women from their homes rather than root out any actual corruption and cronyism in video games media and instead made a bunch of websites add vague rules about Patreon and Kickstarter contributions. They've also accomplished getting a bunch of conservative talking heads on their side who arguably don't care about video games at all. Anyone who has done their best to cover what GamerGate really thinks has found nothing to refute their initial preconceptions, and many were attacked (even if not viciously) as a result.

This is all addressed in the article. Nearly everything is a quote from a journalist rather than being presented in Wikipedia's voice because of the constant complaints that presenting it as anything other than a quote or an opinion, despite the fact that many people independently have similar opinions and such regarding misogyny and harassment and that it's tied into GamerGate would under any other topic be considered a fact. The constant calls of "bias" on this article have almost always arisen from voices that have been making impossible claims on the article. That we must address aspects that violate WP:BLP or that are only being mentioned in fringe sources, or as below, barely mentioned in a very small number of reliable sources. Wikipedia is not taking a side in this dispute. There is simply only one side that can be adequately covered by Wikipedia based on WP:UNDUE and WP:V. I cannot personally tell how to sterilize this topic when it involves death threats, accusations of sexual impropriety, decrying opponents as SJWs, playing victim when a person with no power fights back, attacking anone trying to discover what they're about, amongst various other transgressions, most of which are described in the article or its sources. Of course the worst is that it's sendng video games back decades in how people view them.

There's that tweet that goes "1999: Video games do not cause school shootings. 2014: Video games causes someone to want to make a school shooting." That is what the public sees. That is how the media discusses things. Beyond Kotaku and Polygon though. This is the narrative of CNN, the BBC, the New York Times, Time magazine (and not just Leigh Alexander's piece), etc. Not what BreitBart and all of these no name blogs that have popped up when everyone began to distrust everything else because it wasn't showing exactly what they wanted. Wikipedia is not the venue to right the wrongs that GamerGate sees in its public image. That is what nearly every editor decrying "this is biased" or "there's no neutrality". Because they see GamerGate not being described as they want it to be described. They see it as biased because it's not exclusively biased in their favor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You make good points, but i still don't see why the article cannot be written "in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." The first sentence of the lede has lost acknowledgement of what gg claims to want and now reads like the opinions of the journalists.

"Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #GamerGate) is a controversy within video game culture concerning misogynistic attacks on various indie game developers, video game journalists, and other personalities involved with the video game industry."

"misogynistic attacks" is an opinion of writers. The sentence could be written like this:

Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #GamerGate) is a controversy/movement within video game culture that claims to be about corruption in journalism but has gained attention due to attacks on various game developers, video game journalists, and other personalities involved with the video game industry.

This is much better and keeps every core value and viewpoint of the article. Retartist (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Either one is an "opinion of writers," frankly. Because there is no "GamerGate" organization which can present a unified platform, there is no way to firmly define the movement's interests and goals. It is only the opinion of some people in GamerGate is that it's about "corruption in journalism." Others will say that GamerGate is about "SJWs" and feminists taking over video games and such, which are issues that have absolutely nothing to do with "corruption in journalism." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, when you read on the various threads offline from the proGG there are some that say that the pushing of political/social ideals via video games is part of the corruption, the example being given of Gone Home that reviewers praised the story (with strong LGBT themes) and completely overlooked the gameplay, making any of their reviews unhelpful, and in general slanting which games get the most coverage because of the presence of such themes. They want games taken at more face value as they used to, even if they carry a theme. There are definitely some more coherent arguments (some I don't agree with, some I do) once you get past the upper layers. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That is literally the most absurd argument in the history of ever. Overlooked *what* "gameplay"? Just because Gone Home doesn't involve shooty-shooty bang bang or hacky-slashy kill things? It's a friggin' point-and-click adventure, which has been a video gaming thing since the beginning of time. Claiming that its critical acclaim is an example of "corruption in journalism" is so absolutely bizarrely bonkers as to not deserve the time of day. You will not find a single reliable source which claims that Gone Home's critical reception has anything to do with actual "corruption in journalism."

Masem, this is exactly what is meant by the widespread, reliably-sourced observation that "journalism ethics" is a smokescreen for culture warring. The claim that reviewers praising a game for its story more than its gameplay are somehow "corrupt" is utterly incoherent and nonsensical. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never said this was a "good" opinion, but it is an opinion (and nor is it one I agree on). As that piece by Singal stated, if the GG clearly stated these types of issues in some type of goals statement, and backed it with a unified front, there might be more press respect for what their cause is. They are valid opinions, even if you don't agree with that. (And we do have sourcing for the counter argument that you can't review video games like you review cars or applicances which are supposed to meet a certain function) --19:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, Masem. There will never be any mainstream press respect for the "cause" that giving a good review to a game because of the power of its story is "corrupt" or "unethical," because that argument is literally nonsensical. It does not even purport to know what corruption and unethical behavior actually are, and has no relationship with actual reality. I repeat myself, but this very clearly demonstrates the incoherence of GamerGate's aims — honest reviews should be an expression of the review writer's opinion of the game, free from all outside influences, and GamerGate is attempting to be an unethical outside influence to pressure game reviewers to review games as GG demands rather than as an honest expression of their opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, and this type of thinking is why this article is a problem. It is an opinion. It might not be popular, the press may laugh at the time, but if it is a point that the proGG puts forward as one of their concerns, it's a point to address in this article. And while I can't give you any RS to support this, I have seen some game journalist reviews go "Yes, sometimes we get too much into the message and not the game" and then counter "but video games are an art form now, and its less about the gameplay". It is a completely fair opinion that some have taken seriously in the extend that they have provided counterarguments for, which they wouldn't have done if it is something that would have otherwise been laughed off. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not wrong. Reviews should express the honest opinions of the review writer. If you don't like a particular writer's review of a game, you can move on and read someone else's review of that game. Or, in this day and age, write your own review of the game. Attempting to pressure a reviewer to write the review as you want that game perceived rather than how the reviewer perceives that game is the very definition of unethical behavior in journalism. And that's why every mainstream source laughs at GamerGate's "ethics" claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not what they are saying , that's your preconvienced, biased notion of what they are saying. They know reviews are opinions, so they should reflect the opinions of reviews. But the proGG has also stated they want reviewers to remember that there are people that want to play games as games, and the fact that reviews will bury or not even cover the gameplay is one of their concerns; and that ties into the fact that a game with a strong message but zero gameplay can get extensive treatement in the press. Now, I don't agree with this viewpoint, but it is a cohesive and valid argument that is present in proGG boards. As soon as a RS can talk to this point, we should include it immediately, alongside the clear counterarguments that have been made. That's how to cover the ethics issue in a balanced manner. You don't have to agree (nor do I expect anyone to) with that view, but I do expect that there is some respect here for their concerns. We don't treat Obama birthers or 9/11 conspiratists with anything close to this same type of contempt. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You've just contradicted yourself (as does Gamergate). An honest review should not affected by any outside influence, period. Demanding that reviewers take into account what Gamergate wants them to take into account is an outside influence demanding that reviewers modify their opinions based on those outside demands. If you can't see how that's self-contradictory and logically incoherent, I can't help you. But it's clear to anyone outside the bubble that it makes no sense and has not the slightest thing to do with any conception of professional journalism ethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If the articles the gamers are upset with are just controversial, deconstructive click-bait like, "Is Bayonetta more misogynist than Hitler?", then there is kind of a legitimate case for concern. Taking a close, critical inspection of the message a game is trying to tackle is one thing, but insulting a whole game because of sin, or degeneracy, or some other nebulous evil is just a way to bait people into re-posting the article, if for no other reason than to complain about it. From that perspective, I'd say there are feminists who are frustrated by these kinds of articles too, because there are games that do make social commentary and that commentary is being ignored in favor of hostile, terrible click-bait. Kind of like all this one-sided, controversial reporting being used to even talk about GamerGate.

I'm sure I could find articles discussing the way that the value of ad clicks has been falling over the years, and it may be having an impact on journalism at large, with GamerGate being one expression of dissatisfaction with that chase of extra clicks. I'm almost positive I can't find an RS to link this meaningfully to GamerGate, but I honestly think it's a major factor and it could be something that blows up on other journals that have been using the same tactics. All I'm saying is, don't write off the ethics stuff right away just because the details surrounding Quinn haven't held up to scrutiny. They're doing their best to kill Gawker, with enough success that it's getting attention, so after all that talk of "why don't they go after the journals instead of the girls if they're not misogynist," there's your response. They are going after the journals.

In any case, it remains tough to examine the end goal of GamerGate. There are a few articles discussing what they think those goals are and why, but there's so few of them. YellowSandals (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we remove or shortern the ammount on the "End of Gamer Identity" angle?

I haven't seen anything in while take that angle, I think a paragraph would maybe be more suitable. Halfhat (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it the whole reason Operation whatever Nod exists?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case it should probably just be background in the ODN section. I still don't think it needs 3 paragraphs. Halfhat (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's still a major aspect because the change of what is a "gamer" was a point of discussion until all of the new death threats.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It also ties in a bit with the rationale of why GG exists, that some have stated that the changing demographic has changed what it means to be a gamer, and thus the "death" of the normal stereotype. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing much of that angle really either. It's largely just misogyny and journalism I'm seeing. Halfhat (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely in the sources, but I'd have to review to pinpoint it. But it definitely is tied to the the idea that core male gamers are feeling their identity threatened by the changed demographics that has been contributed to a reason why this has come out. (At least, to put it one way, it's a "giving them the benefit of the doubt" type reason that has been proposed). --MASEM (t) 17:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That's mostly coming from opinion pieces though, right? Do we really need to say more than "some journalists wrote articles on the how the meaning of being a gamer is evolving" or something like that? As of right now the gamer identity angle takes up a pretty huge part of the article, especially the background section. What defines a gamer is probably best left to the gamer article. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It's far to much for how much of the discussion is now. The point largely seems to have been dropped and to make it a major part of the backround plus 3 paragraphs is insane. Halfhat (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

They have been talking a lot about shifting demographics and the gamer identity. The "Gamers are dead" article is the most well-known one because it seems to be what caused Intel to pull out of the site that ran it. However, it's been part of the general discussion in a number of pieces, whether they're saying gamers are scared of losing their identity or if they're saying that Anita and other critics aren't real gamers. Somners' video analysis of the subject addresses it directly, going over the numbers and statistics being used to talk about whether or not male audiences, who tend to like lady butts, are still dominating the market enough to explain why there's so many lady butts in games.

This has continually lead into the misogyny thing. In the most basic distillation, most of these articles keep saying that men no longer dominate gaming and are misogynistic to act like they do, expressed with terms that vary in harshness. YellowSandals (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That said, this article needs a lot of trimming, so if one paragraph conveys the same meaning as the current three, then I'll throw in a vote to trim. YellowSandals (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of gamers being dead, given that ALL mainstream gaming sources including Kotaku, Polygon, Gamasutra, Ars Technica, all of them reliable, say gamers are dead, we should go to the Gamer article and just state in the lead "Also they're dead". I can't believe not even a single mention of "misogyny" is there given that all mainstream sources say gamers are all misogynists Loganmac (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Weren't all of them critiques on the exclusivity and/or stereotype of the gamer being dead? And you are really stretching what the sources say. Reliable sources say that there are highly visible misogynistic elements in the Gamergate movement and not that "all gamers are misogynists".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit for discussion: Death threats against Sarkeesian and Wu

This sentence is problematic:

Though she had spoken before at other events in the wake of Gamergate which had received similar threats, she opted to cancel when the school could not assure her safety under existing Utah state weapons laws.

It seems to be saying that Sarkeesian spoke at other events where she had received similar threats, and that those events were after September 2014 but before the scheduled talk at USU. This is not supported by the references. She did receive similar threats before the Game Developers Choice Awards in March 2014. Also the summary of her cancellation is not precise. I propose the following alternate text:

School officials said the threat was "similar to other threats that Sarkeesian has received in the past."<ref name=AnitaUSUCNN /> She opted to cancel because the school could not comply with her requests for additional gun restrictions at the event.

~~I am not flagging this for administrator attention yet because this is a controversial topic.~~ Does anyone disagree with the changes above? DPRoberts534 (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so the article is no longer protected. Still waiting for feedback before I make the change. DPRoberts534 (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I could have sworn the source had a quote from her directly that mentioned previous threats after August but can't find it. That's better to change until I can relocate or confirm. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there was a threat to the Game Dev Awards that we can cite.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The lines' in the proposed changes, here's a source [1]. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Done, and thanks. DPRoberts534 (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Intro revert stuff

To stop an edit war lets just talk about it here. For reverting the length one I feel this article could do with some general trimming that's all see below. My issue is with the use of calling the ethics claims "widely discredited" this is far to charged especially so early on which amplifies this. It really seems to take a side which Wikipedia shouldn't. Halfhat (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources describe it as such so Wikipedia should describe it as such.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter. Wikipedia doesn't have opinions, if all the sources declared Lincoln the greatest president ever, Wikipedia wouldn't hold that view. Halfhat (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia would remark that historians consider him as such but not necessarily make that opinion, but the fact that the claims have been discredited and disproven is not a subjective statement unless you're talking to someone moving the goal posts.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

But it's still opinion, and discredited implies agreement. Show me how it was objectively disproven because doubt such it a thing is possible. Halfhat (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If you've got a set of reliable sources that say something other than what we've got in the article please bring them to the table, otherwise you are beating a dead horse. Artw (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That argument makes no sense, what's being discussed is the NPOV policy. Saying something is discreditted takes a side. Halfhat (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We should not make it appear there are legitimate ethics concerns where no evidence of any have been produced, neither should we lend creditibility to the long debunked claims against Quinn. Artw (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again, this has gotten to be absolutely ridiculous. Calling the ethics claims "widely discredited" is blatant POV pushing and goes against everything that WP:NPOV stands for. While I understand that Wikipedia simply reflects what is reported in the mainstream media, and that the mainstream media is overwhelmingly negative on the subject of Gamergate, it nevertheless goes against Wikipedia's core principals to actively try to reproduce bias in the media and public opinion just because it happens to be widely held. I'll point out that Creationism isn't considered an intellectually respectable position outside of religious fundamentalist circles, yet Wikipedia still manages to produce an article on that topic which is not full of invective. Why can't the same be done here? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the original allegations about Quinn and Grayson are dismissed as mistaken (to put it charitably) in pretty much every first-rate source that references them, when we refer to the allegations we must also make clear that they are considered false. Failing to do so, especially where the material first occurs in the article, is a serious BLP issue. If widely discredited is disliked, I would suggest specious as a more nuanced alternative. CIreland (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There are some additional allegations circulating forums having to do with Quinn and ethics, but none can be repeated without adequate sourcing because, like many accusations on both sides, there are few specific proofs of anything. A great deal of expressed accusations (from both sides, mind) have to do with circumstantial evidence, which can easily be false, with several allegations having been proven false. The ethics concerns have been broad, with some being discussed and addressed within articles about GamerGate. Though not specifically focused, the issue of ethics in game journalism has been consistently spoken of and remarked on as something motivating GamerGate. YellowSandals (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

well, to be more specific, it has been consistently spoken of and remarked on as a false cover used by GamerGaters to attempt to misdirect and hide from the harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE, WP:RS and WP:BLP for why treating the claims of GamerGate against Quinn as credible is not acceptable for this article. Artw (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The Gamergate movement's self-descriptor as being about "journalistic ethics" makes no specific claims whatsoever about Quinn. (In fact, very little focus about Gamergate since September has had anything to do with Quinn.) Since you haven't actually addressed a single concern and made specious BLP and undue weight claims to defend what really comes down to some pretty blatant POV pushing, I will be reverting this again. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

One more note - the language of "claims about journalistic ethics" - note the word "claims" - already represents neutral language. Once again, I think it's more than a stretch to say that just because the mainstream media coverage of Gamergate is hostile, that therefore the Wikipedia article must adopt a strongly anti-Gamergate tone to reflect that. WP:UNDUE does not negate WP:NPOV. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The events started with Quinn and the alleged "ethics violation" that took place with her personal life. Those have been discredited and there has not been one other feasible act of corruption uncovered by the movement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

At this point, your bias and extremely creative use of BLP and Undue Weight claims are self evident. First, the "journalistic ethics" claim makes no specific claims whatsoever concerning Quinn, and it's a bad-faith use of WP:BLP to claim this article somehow requires a statement that Gamergate's self-description is "widely discredited". I also will point out that you are wholly ignoring WP:NPOV, and are using rather creative means to make an end-run around it. There is a report on you currently for edit warring, which I will definitely add to, because at this point, this is what you are doing. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That is because we have had to sterilize the lead paragraph of anything resembling anything. There are no valid claims of corruption in video games journalism uncovered by Gamergate, whether it involves Zoe Quinn or not, so therefore their claims have been discredited.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It was completely improper to use that language in the lead, because the video game journalist community has agreed that there are ethics issues, including those related to the specific ones the proGG had, and these are things that they would like to discuss in a non-combative manner with proGG. And if they weren't issues or discredited issues, sites like Escapist, etc wouldn't have had to change their sponsorship program. The most neutral way to say it that follows the sources is that issues have been considered, neither saying they were proven true or false, and getting into the specifics in the body. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

They acknowledge there are problems, but they're not the problems Gamergate has been fighting. And the only reason they changed anything was because of the vitriol.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Citation needd of the claim they changed it due to vitriol. --MASEM (t) 01:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the whole thing about Gamergate yelling at Kotaku et al was because of the indie game crowdfunding issue?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You really are oversimplifying a lot here. Halfhat (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"neutrality is disputed"

Firstly, I'm not sure "Gamergate controversy" is even a good title for this. Probably just "Gamergate". If you want to avoid bias, changing that is probably the first step. Other media sources have referred to it as a movement within the gaming community. This is not to say it doesn't contain a lot of controversy, but that's jumping the gun a bit.

Secondly, with opening sentences like "It concerns ingrained issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community", this will never NOT be biased. This needs to be "purported issues of sexism and misogyny". None of that had anything to do with the concerns to begin with other than that it was being forced as a cheap excuse down the throats of many gamers whenever they disagreed with the far fetched claims many volatile and provocative people would make. In actuality, when things became ugly it was not "misogyny" any more than it was simply just bullying, threatening, harassing. I have yet to see a single motive for acting immaturely like this come from a misogynistic point of view, unless being upset with a video showcasing many video games set to an audio track of "too many dicks on the dance floor" constitutes sexism. Of course this is from my point of view and experience and as such has no weight on the matter.

However, it is 100% necessary that people who feel they have been subjected to prejudice based on their gender and their supporters do need to be acknowledged. Fairly. The way it is written currently is totally wrong for a "neutral" article. I'm not going to get involved but the article needs a cleanup - it's not hard at all to achieve neutrality. I would suggest that people work on it a bit more. Don't favor any of the extremes, whether it's an irate manchild from 4chan or a twitter "feminist" that is completely full of shit, just document what has happened.

Swim Jonse (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Please review the talk page and its archives. Every point you've made has been addressed in depth before. 1) We cannot use "Gamergate" as that conflicts with the species of ant 2) The press have stated numerous times that because the harassment seems completely focused on female game devs and their supporters that they are unable to call this as anything but sexist and misogynistic. 3) We would love to acknowledge the proGG side, but as has been pointed out in mainstream sources, it is impossible to figure out that side due to lack of organization and as such there is minimal sourcing from that side. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerGates notability is derived from it's campaign of misoginistic harassment, as such the article is going to describe that campaign. If it was about the imaginary complaints of some game forum trolls it would be deleted since that is absolutely not notable. Artw (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The species of an ant. Well I suppose adjusting how we handle disambiguation from case to case is nothing new here, along with adjusting the reasons why we adjusted it. Though you seem to misunderstand entirely my contribution to this talk page (curious though, it warranted someone dropping by my talk page with the notification that it's a big deal, the talk page itself) - though I'll acknowledge the denial via internal justification that notability is inherent in correctness. It's extremely bothersome when someone (and this has nothing to do with "pro" or "anti") who was there and watched things play out from the perspective of being involved has to entertain the notion that a generalization is considered the most appropriate answer by those outside of whatever group(s) the issue involves. Though it isn't a surprise in any way that in a case involving a lack of integrity in mainstream news sources has to rely almost entirely on mainstream news sources for its facts. It's not any different growing up in a faux democracy and being force fed lies you can't dispute due to the nature of the thing. I don't really care about overly mechanical protocol on WP but I understand it, obviously, nor do I believe the non-notable should be acknowledged over the notable (more so it's just that if the notable are relevant to the article, minimalism in a way that eliminates anything remotely radical is the best way of addressing what we don't know 100% as facts). Doesn't change the point.

Which is where I'm pretty sure you misunderstood me as I'm not intending to give off an impression discordant with what I have said. I'm not debating with anyone about the proper way to deal with this because they wouldn't listen. I'm just stating things that will continue to keep the neutrality of this article disputed - that's all. If people get tired of people bringing up things that were apparently or obviously brought up before from whatever context they might be stated again in then that comes at the cost of not being as harsh with insistence on neutrality as possible. I'm not going to be the one to work it out because I already tried to with the article for Depression Quest right as the scandal broke out. There were too many detractors of what was easily the most reasonable way to represent everything. Like that, I'll just come back in a month when everything has worked itself out and the article inevitably has shifted to a far more reasonable state, when it won't matter anymore whether I or anyone else thought that's how it should have been before. Some[body, people] must be the one to jump through a dozen hoops and it's not my turn this time.

Swim Jonse (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't an issue with a "lack of integrity in mainstream news media". It's complaints about the video game news media. No one in Gamergate has any beef with CNN or BBC. Ther beef is with Gawker and Polygon. So there's no problem in using the former over the latter. And the former recognizes the anti-woman stance taken by the movement, over any issues they have had with ethics in journalism which everyone has recognized does not exist.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Did I once mention CNN? Do you lack the capacity to understand which "mainstream media" is being targeted in this situation? That's not an elaborate way to say CNN. It would seem obvious that I'm referring to mainstream media that deals with video games since that's...I don't know, the persistent point here? That extends beyond [Gawker's] apparent conclusion that there are no issues with mainstream game journalism and whatever people who consider themselves members of "GamerGate" (who feel they need a label - I distanced myself heavily from the whole as soon as that became a hashtag) feel about Polygon. There's so many sites involved. I don't need to name them out. I don't need to defend myself from the claims that I and my peers must be "anti-women", for the same reason I don't need to try to "take back" the label of "gamer" (one I never applied to myself in years of playing games) when someone says that it's dead when it isn't as demonstrated by the fact that nothing happened to prevent one from identifying with it. This whole thing is full of claims made from all sides with absolutely no intention whatsoever of acknowledging the burden of proof. I merely wished to state that there's no way this will be "neutral" under certain circumstances.

Finally, no need to address the rest of that individual's closed POV but this little bit is a gem: "GamerGates notability is derived from it's campaign of misoginistic harassment"

You have bias, a working example of why this article lacks neutrality and some sprinkles of basic apostrophe/spelling issues on top. I presume that explains why I received the notification about the talk page. You guys settle this war at your own pace.

Swim Jonse (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That was established in the AFD, FWIW. Artw (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to recognize that this article is not calling "your peers" anti-women. This is calling the actions of those within Gamergate as "anti-women" because that's what the media sees. Because there's no central leadership. It's just a bunch of anons going "it's actually about ethics in journalism" without having done anything to find any issues with that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand the situation. You're not imparting any wisdom here telling me WP protocol. The article covers a topic that involves sources that DO call my peers "anti-women". It lacks a sense of neutrality and therefore it is disputed. Again, it will never not be disputed in its current state. I'm sorry that there's an apparent misunderstanding of something so simple. The "media" is relative, and if one of the issues is regarding mainstream media not covering the situation correctly (I presume Forbes and many other sites that have looked at this from a neutral POV are longer mainstream media if the consensus is undeniably "a misogynistic campaign", which it isn't anymore than bullshit and general harassment from both sides), you're not going to get mainstream sources providing any information other than what keeps them out of trouble - in this instance challenging video game related "feminism" usually lands you with some bogus accusations, even if you challenge it with pro-feminism points. It's irrelevant because that's the easiest defense mechanism.

Regarding the comment about how people have done nothing to find an issues with gaming journalism, that's overlooking so much it's hilarious. You're not too unlike that other person, though while I'm not sure you have/haven't made some sort of final conclusion about something that is broad issue and topic, it's apparent that you weren't ever in a position before this started where you cared about gaming journalism. There's plenty of sources discussing this that aren't "a bunch of anons" and there's numerous ways without even acknowledging sources felt to be non-notable to resolve the neutrality issue. I proposed some that had nothing to do with the concrete facts, like people being driven out of their homes because some idiot has no control over their temper. However, I would say that at this point it seems nobody really wants neutrality, which is a shame given that this is Wikipedia. Again, I'll be back when the issue works itself out. Artw's comment was so one sided that I almost can't believe it's anything other than a troll and I don't care for that sort of thing. Swim Jonse (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Another massive edit

So, basically, I felt I would give another epic Leeroy Jenkins edit a try here and see what people think of it. I re-arranged a few things, particularly sectioning over the GamerGate activism section to focus on organization and such regarding the movement and try to maintain the relevance of other sections. One thing I did was restore a section for stuff about ethics concerns and added a sub-section for GameJournoPros since it is mentioned in numerous reliable sources. One other important addition was the mention of harassment of GamerGate supporters. I also diminished the stuff about Felicia Day since that we being given way too much weight given its minimal impact. Overall, I feel this is a step towards a better and more neutral article, though it still needs work.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 10:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, it already seems more neutral than first.--Sirtywell — Preceding undated comment added 10:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the GameJournoPros stuff, as the allegations are not made by any particular reliable source. BrightSideOfNews is not one, as was discussed a long, long time ago. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, I would suggest you step away from this article for a little while. You are making blatantly NPOV edits at this point. Stating "Lets be blunt here" while changing "allegations" to "false allegations" when both Quinn and Greyson have confirmed they had at least a personal friendship at the time of his writing about her works (which was the original accusation) is very much an inappropriate edit. KiTA (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Having a "personal friendship" is not a violation of journalism ethics. Grayson never wrote a review of Quinn's game. Therefore, as discussed in all of the reliable sources, the accusations are considered false. And no, I'm not going to "step aside." We describe false allegations as they are — false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, having an undisclosed personal friendship with a subject is very much a violation of journalism ethics. No one ever claimed Grayson wrote a review of Quinn's game, merely that he gave her positive (and in some cases, unusually specific) attention. And finally, a journalist or publication, talking about themselves in defense of accusations of impropriety, is by definition not a reliable source. KiTA (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You are engaged in a rather interesting attempt to rewrite history and I decline to engage you in it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not how discussion works, Baranof. Respond to the argument, not the person. Omegastar (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Even "allegations" is not a good word because it implies there is no truth to the claim. But since nobody in the press has bothered to point out Grayson's promotion, writing otherwise would be WP:OR. Although it is still absolutely ridiculous that Kotaku is still being used as a reliable source on their own impropriety.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"Allegation" is a standard word for an unproven claim of wrongdoing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Just commenting that the overall structure feels much better with this, thanks. There's still other problems but this helps. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Anil Dash

If we're using minimal sourcing as per the above, then I propose we add something to the page regarding the harassment received by blogger Anil Dash.

Death and Taxes (owned by SpinMedia)
TechCrunch (used in other capacities on the page)

This would arguably be adding a section that says that Anil Dash, an individual who never (as far as I am aware) wrote about video games or GamerGate was harassed online at the behest of Mike Cernovich after he accused Dash of being involved with Gawker, and then bribed him by claiming to donate to charity. The DT piece also touches upon the "No true Scotsman" thing before Singal wrote his article (I think). Also Dash (via Twitter) says that Cernovich doxxed him and stalked him for a year in this series of tweets (scroll up for the related tweets). Is there a feasible place for this in the larger article?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Slate on serious overview of the GG moderate, including the self-policing towards harassment

[2] I think I saw another source this morning about the self-policing but I would have to review. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This could be used to supplement the Tsukayama piece on "Gamergate could end in a week".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The threats against Gamergate supporters paragraph

I've been heavily editing the paragraph to remove the highly charged descriptions of the threats that they've reported. We do not include any details on the threats received by the anti-GamerGate side (aside from the ones to Quinn, which is again because she's the impetus, and the USU threat because the threat itself was analyzed) so we do not need to say that Boogie was threatened to become a widower (just saying his wife was threatened is sufficient) or that the John Doe gamergater was threatened with being mutilated (again, just saying the threat exists is sufficient).

And, as I said in the section above, the sourcing for this is poor. Most of the sourcing for Yiannopolous's syringe is single updates to two pieces and a single sentence in another.

Is Reason.com a reliable source? I'm personally not sure.
TechCrunch and Kotaku include post-publishing "updates" that mention the syringe
Is Inquisitr a reliable source? I don't think it is.
This piece by The Washington Post covers it, so that passes (but only mentiones one Jane Doe and an identified but non-notable John Doe)
Is Stuff.co.nz a reliable source? Or NZGamer as thats where it was originally published?

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again, Kotaku is eithre a valid source or it isn't. If it isn't, there's 4 existing citations and accompanying statements that need to go. Reason is largely an opinion source - it's as valid as any op-ed source cited here, but I think more generally, more reliance on news sources and less reliance on op-eds is called for across the board here. Between the Kotaku and Washington Post source, I think the attacks on pro-GG figures, especially Milo Yiannopolos, is well sourced and should be included. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, I am not calling into question the reliablility of Kotaku. Do you see me saying anything about the reliability of Kotaku here? NO. I am saying that their one sentence coverage of Milo's syringe is not significant coverage of the event. Neither is Tech Crunch's. Neither is Reason's. Washington Post doesn't include the word "syringe" or mention Milo at all. It talks about two non-notable people who say they were harassed. And you still do not address the reliability of the New Zealand news sites. Why are they the only ones talking about Boogie? Is he Kiwi? Or is it just the only venue The Devil's Advocate could find that talks about the threat to Boogie's wife? Answer these questions rather than put words in my mouth.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with stuff.co.nz, looks like a legitimate paper chain. I'd question using NZGamer in this context though. Strongjam (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Reason is reliable. Business Insider linked to it. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because Business Insider links to something does not mean that Wikipedia can consider as something that meets WP:RS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the case here but if multiple highly reliable sources link to something that would be a SPS or similar in a manner to highlight that SPS post, it's reasonable for us to include with the notion the RSes pointed to that. However, one source is not sufficient. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you try to at least be professional in this? Titling things like the way you did seems incredibly condescending. Dermato1 19:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dermato1 (talk • contribs)

You're right. Also, welcome back to Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the references to Milo's syringe as Kotaku and TechCrunch's coverage is an afterthought and Reason.com is not a reliable source. The rest of the paragraph has been rewritten and Boogie remains included.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

General Article Policy Discussion

Okay the replies for the above got a bit off track, so I thought I'd try splitting them up. Sorry if I cause any confusion. Halfhat (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There are some very, very simple things that could be done to make this article far more neutral. It doesn't have to be anything radical whatsoever. The biggest issue is that opening bit, and the fact is that it is a generalization with a bias. It's not remotely the most appropriate way to describe any of this and therefore the neutrality is disputed. There are the facts - people were driven out of their homes. Harassment has occurred. Financial backing of various things has occurred. Media sources have tried to spin it all one way or the other. Wikipedia is the source that's supposed to analyze and cross reference these different points of view so as to come up with the least biased encyclopedic representation of it possible. So the issue is mainly the words and sentences we use to bridge facts with other facts. Words like "purportedly" or "supposedly" can completely remove an apparent bias from a sentence. This applies both to the claims of misogyny as well as the claims about journalism, though considering this is the article about "GamerGate", it'd seem more appropriate to cover it from the perspective of its followers and those involved. I think the title of the article being "Gamergate controversy" as opposed to "Gamergate (video games)" or something more appropriate is an issue myself, but I'm not going to try and do anything about it. I'd just want to encourage WP editors to do the most reasonable thing whenever a situation arises. When this all began there was a similar situation regarding the Depression Quest article, where I proposed some changes that were initially reverted. The article now contains these changes and as I said in that talk page, I trust the community will make the best decision (instead of just arguing incessantly). Swim Jonse (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)(part 2 of 2 of original comment)

Agree. The article should be renamed. The lede refers to itself as the Gamergate article, yet others have rationalized that this is the Gamergate controversy article. The discussion of the hashtag cannot possibly usurp the notability of the hashtag itself.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I'm for "Gamergate (video games)".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest just GamerGate (controversy) Halfhat (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest everybody read WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP and WP:N and abide by them, also avoid nonstarter arguments like "Reliable sources are so biased! Why can't we base the article on something else instead?". Artw (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Obvious bias in reliable sources is something we should be aware of and attempt to manage as well. It's not a non-starter (though "use others" is not a solution) --MASEM (t) 14:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is there are many other policies too, and they aren't intended to be applied blindly, other than legal stuff. That means there will be some debate about them even if everyone understands them fully, that's why I think we need to start having debates while maintaining civility. Halfhat (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please, no more "But the press is all biased!" either. That's absolutely a nonstarter. Artw (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That's burying your head in the sand to one of the problems with trying to build this article. I'm not speaking to the levels that some proGG believe the press is all colluding to control the narrative, but the press (both VG and mainstream) have biases because part of the debate of GG is the ethics of their profession so of course they will be even the smallest amount biased in covering it. Obviously, we're not to be rejecting mainstream sources, but we have to be aware they have a non-neutral stance here. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Plus, as the press has said before, there is some bias from the pro-GG being leaderless and thus just harder to cover. Halfhat (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It is simply not our job to do their PR. Artw (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Its our job to not take a side in an issue and summarize an event as neutrally as possible; understanding that press sources will possess some bias in GG is necessary to know that we cannot simply parrot them and instead use good judgement to stick to the neutral facts they present in the situation and if opinion is needed making sure it is not reported in WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We are not going to spin what RSs say to make GamerGate look better. Artw (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

And so we shouldn't be spinning sources to make it worse, either, which is what is happening. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Also describing the allegations against Quinn as anything other than false is a WP:BLP violation so please stop beating that dead horse. Artw (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we should do what North did which is say "Now discredited" or similar. False has connotations of dishonesty which isn't good either. Halfhat (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw 'unsubstantiated' in the history, I'm good with that as well if 'false' is going to be a serious issue of contention. Strongjam (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"Unsubstantiated" leaves open the possibility that it will be substantiated in the future. "Now discredited" is better, but to be honest, given the BLP concerns, I much prefer the unambiguous "false". False allegations don't have to be dishonest - just incorrect. - Bilby (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not that it has to, it's about connotations. I don't see anything wrong with "Now Discredited" it says it's not true with no connotation of dishonesty. Halfhat (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

False doesn't have those connotation either. You can say someone is wrong without it implying they are dishonest. If we do go with 'now discredited' can we drop the 'now'? Seems superfluous to me. Strongjam (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Well "False" alone doesn't, but "False Accusation" does, it is sometimes used to mean slander. Halfhat (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You want us to make it look like this is the good kind of false accusation? Artw (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"erroneous accusation" then? Or "baseless"? "Now-discredited" sounds like it was credible but then someone showed that it wasn't. There was never any positive review so it was never a credible accusation. Strongjam (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Erroneous seems fine to me, baseless seems a bit loaded. Halfhat (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Updated to erroneous, lets see if it sticks Strongjam (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Point of order: an encyclopedia does not assume the responsibility of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?. Also, keep in mind that the thrust of "pro-GG" was bias in gaming media, not a broadside against journalism ethics overall. If this whole thing was largely confined to gamer media covering GG, that's be one thing; but we have piles of mainstream sources now that are far removed from the direct topic area that are largely dismissive of "but ethics". Tarc (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It is still is their opinion this is far removed from ethics. There is a lot of assumptions being made to assert that GG is "not ethics"; it is opinion, not fact, and we need to respect that in our writing. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That's what we're trying to do here; acknowledged and reflect the opinion of the majority of reliable sources, in the face of the minority of fringe sources that say otherwise. Was Barack Obama literally and in fact born in Hawaii in 1961? I wasn't there, and my TARDIS is in the shop, so I cannot say for sure that it is a "fact" that he was born there, neither can anyone else. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources that have covered the controversy, examined the evidence, and heard the views of the participants concluded that, yes, the evidence that he was born in Hawaii in 1961 is a nigh-incontrovertible opinion. Reliable sources are deemed reliable due to their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When writing articles, Wikipedia editors put their faith in reliable sources, trusting that when they say XYZ, there's generally a good reason why they said XYZ. It isn't blind faith, but questioning the reliability of the NY Times to the WAPost and others, as some have done here, is a mighty high hurdle to clear. Tarc (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledging the majority opinion, yes, we're absolutely right to do. But this article in its present state, rams that opinion hard and to the point of stating that what is claimed in the opinion is fact, where there is very little hard evidence to say exactly who, what, or why things happened the way they did. That's what the issue is here. With Birthers, there's hard evidence - the actual records, the actual certificate, etc., to clearly dismiss the claims of the birthers. There is nothing like that here - both sides of the argument. Hence everything we're talking about is primarily opinion and needs to be clearly voiced as opinion, and because we're not a soapbox, we should not be heavily using opinion statements to summarize something factual. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that we have to treat any information that you or anyone else disagrees with as 'opinion.' That's not how this works. If most of our sources only go so far as to say that gamergate claims to be about ethics, that's what we have to do as well. If they go so far as to actively discredit these claims, as an increasing number do, we need to say that as well. Believe it or not it is possible to make a judgement about a movement based on its actions without needing to read the minds of every participant. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

For one, I don't disagree with many of the antiGG sources in terms of the argument. What I do strongly disagree is that these sources are still reporting their opinions and impressions of what GG is , and that here is being used to try to document that as fact, which it is not. Judgement is not facts. We have to keep that in mind here. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Our sources are using common sense and logic to reach a conclusion based on the facts, as we can trust our sources to do. We don't have good sources that gamergate is actually about ethics. We do have good sources that gamergate has caused a great deal of misogynistic harassment towards women working in the gaming industry. That's really all there is to it. We can not continue to present the weakly sourced claims that gamergate is about ethics and well sourced fact of its large scale harassment side by side as equally valid, equally sourced viewpoints. We have to give these ideas the weight our sources do and treat them the way our sources treat them. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

A source can still be reliable while having opinions and biases, I think we need to separate the facts from opinions and present each, if at all, as such. The thing with the example given is that there is significantly more verifiable information about Obama's birth than the thoughts and motives behind a large leaderless generally anonymous group. Halfhat (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Another dead horse to avoid: trying to use sources showing GG has no interest in actual ethical issues regarding AAA gaming to show the opposite. Artw (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"Gamergate" without the "controversy" is a non notable, ineffectual set of twits on the internet. the only thing that has any coverage is the controversy caused by the fact that a significant portion of the twits involved terroristic threats, directed mostly at women and feminists and the people who stood up and said the kind of basic truism: "harassment is wrong". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum, please take your personal opinions somewhere else where it is more appropriate. Also, try to be more civil.Omegastar (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Newsweek/Brandwatch article

Data analysis of #GG tweets. There's something we should be able to do with this but I don't know immediately where to put it. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Was just about to post this link. Even more evidence that this is not about journalism. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ill just step in and say something here since I work in stats, the methodology of that article is off and cannot be used to say that GG is about harassment. The stats only show this. "In the following graphic, compare how often GamerGaters tweet at Zoe Quinn, a developer, and Nathan Grayson, a Kotaku games journalist." This was not an analysis over the gamergate hashtag, but over the amount of tweets that some people were getting. We can also see that over 90% of tweets to each person were neutral, while 0-10% of them were split between positive and negative tweets. Another thing to think about is to see how much those certain people are participating in the hashtag themselves, and being covered in mainstream media. They will be mentioned more, as well as people tweeting to them who are anti-GG may be using the Gamergate hashtag. So yeah, using just the stats he has posted, his whole article is flawed. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The analysis does actually point out that neutrality aspect of the tweets but does come out in raw #s that the number of negative-tone tweets to Quinn vs Grayson is very different. I would not use this article to state "GG is not about ethics" but I would say that the study does show that the number of tweets toward the named females devs outnumbers those towards journalists, or something like that. There is false conclusions that we have to be careful there. --MASEM (t) 21:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, ill break it down a little more since I was in a rush to get to the store.. "the study does show that the number of tweets toward the named females devs outnumbers those towards journalists". This statement cannot be infered from the article. The reasoning is that they only focused on Nathan Grayson and Kotaku (with Stephen Totillo), it didn't look into any other male journalist who were reporting (EDIT: Or invloved) on the subject. Those stats were not looked at. Not only that, but we can see from his owns stats, using the 2 million number that was given for total tweets, that Anita Sarkessian has received .004% of tweets with the gamergate hashtag included, Brianna Wu has received .005% of tweets, Leigh Alexander has received .0015% of tweets, and Zoe Quinn around .0015% (These percentages are average, using the graph given and rounding to the closest thousand). That sample size is INCREDIBLY small, and cannot be used to show much significance. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I do agree on that point, though your math is off (10,000 "Quinn + #GG" tweaks is 0.5% of the 2M, but still small). Still points that inclusion of this we need to take care doing so. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You are right, my math is off. The graph that he included is faulty and misleading. He includes the actual stats lower. LA is is .6648%, Wu is 1.7594%, AS is 1.7594%, and ZQ is .5% (I forgot to turn it into a percentage... I'm not on the clock so I am not worried haha). But yeah, the size of these samples, as well as considering those percentages are of ALL hashtag mentions (including those from people who are not apart of gamergate) means that his analysis is flawed and should not be used. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, I'd really like to see their stat breakdown. They state that two of those with tweets directed at them (note - not affirmed to be #GG tweets) had more than all the male journalists they looked at, but they don't give a like - was it 2,3 or more like 50? --MASEM (t) 22:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Trust me, I am curious about the data also. I actually inquired the company that he said he got them from to see if they could release the data. With how deceptive he has been with that stats though, I don't trust anything he says about the data. What I am more curious about is what happened to nearly 15-20% of the data he asked them to dig up, since he asked them to dig up 25% of tweets from the gamergate hashtag (Which included the total number directed toward those 6? users in the graph. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but we don't reject reliable sources because an editor who claims to be an expert on statistics judges them to be flawed, especially when that editor is an SPA user with an axe to grind. This is because on the internet, nobody knows you don't have a PhD in philosphy: if you don't come armed with sources of your own your opinion is out of necessity given very little weight. Newsweek is a reliable source, so we can expect that they have used the data appropriately and that the conclusions they've reached are sound. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. They give enough details on there math to show that there's something incomplete and/or biased in their analysis, straight off their numbers; that's not a violation of SYNTH to reject the claims of the source - or at least not include them - if they are not clear or are suspected; if a RS put out the "1=0" claim, and we can find from the data that is fully presented that there is a clear obvious fallacy, we can reject that claim. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I never said it would be a violation of 'synth.' Why on earth would I? The article is perfectly usable: the danger here is in accepting that an anonymous editor with an axe to grind knows more about journalism than actual journalists. It's a news story based on an academic study, but it is the study itself and the lack of full disclosure of data is not a problem here. Your eagerness to reject a source based on claims of 'anti-GG bias' is completely unsurprising, of course. But we'll see what other established editors think. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I never said I was an expert, and you seem to be the one with an axe to grind. I am lurking and decided to comment on exactly what Masem said. So put down your axe. This isn't even based off an academic study, he request the stats from a company who parses those stats, and showed a faulty analysis. I never said 'anti-GG' bias either. I said it was a faulty anlysis, and it is. You see, you seem to be pushing a hard POV, so stop grinding your axe, and when someone makes an actually compelling argument and shows proof using the stats provided, freaking lay off. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You claimed to be able to discredit the analysis of statistics published in a reliable source based on your own statistical expertise, so yes, you're claiming to be more of expert than the person who wrote the article, or the person who wrote the study it's based on. Nobody gets veto a source by simply claiming to know the subject better than its authors. And your account has been used soleley to push a pro-Gamergate POV on this talkpage, so I stand by my comment about your agenda. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I said I work in stats, which is why this article was interesting to me. Everything else you fabricated to try to push your POV, once again, as you have been for the past month. The thing is, you can look at his stats and see exactly where they are faulty. What he looked at can't even be used for his conclusion, since he is focused on one experiment, but says it ALL of GG. But hey, I guess you get a pass for pushing an anti-GG agenda, right? PseudoSomething (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem: you are making a claim that you are better equipped to analyze this data than the authors of the source. This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works - unsurprising since your only experience with Wikipedia is on an article that's overrun by other similarly inexperienced editors all pushing the same pov: your experience on how this project operates is skewed by the poor example of other SPAs.

Put simply, you are not a reliable source. You are an anonymous editor using a single purpose account to push a POV. We don't care what your opinion is: we only care what you (or anyone else) can prove. You need to provide reliable sources and justifications from Wikipedia policy for every single change you make or argue against, and if you don't, nobody has to listen to what you say. You don't get to veto a source because you believe you are better equipped to evaluate the data it is presenting than the author of the source was. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Guess what Tara, let me break something to you, just because you have dedicated yourself to try to skew this article doesn't mean you are right. Masem can see exactly what I am talking about, and she(Or He, I have for some reason thought Masem is a woman, not sure) has been the best editor so far to this article, you instead, have pushed a POV so hard, that I am surprised you are accusing others of pushing a POV. There are 100x more reasons to trust Masem than they are to trust you. PseudoSomething (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This is rich coming from an account that exists solely to push a pro-Gamergate bias. You like Masem because Masem coddles the SPA army and claims that its existence is proof that this article is biased. That doesn't mean that any other long time editor is going to accept your evaluation of this source and reject mine because you claim I'm 'pushing a POV.' I'm pushing for an article that observes Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No, actually, I like Masem because she cares about policy even when it doesn't work in her favor, and tries to actually build the article from that. She looks at everything and makes her decision from that, and follows policy, no matter who likes it or not. You, on the other hand, try your best to eradicate any part of the article that you don't like, even if it has sources to back it up. Which has happened recently. PseudoSomething (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

These are empty accusations: my positions on this page are consistently based in policy and backed by reliable sources, and that's much more than can be said for an unfortunately large number of editors here. So by all means, keep on hurling those accusations, but if you can't back your positions with sources and policy nobody's obligated to listen. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Its 100% obvious, so stop hurling out accusations when you can't stand true ones coming back at you. I already backed it, Masem has seen it, and I trust Masem. Hell, Masem has been the person who has protected this article from bias on both sides, Im guessing the admin, Masem, knows better than you. PseudoSomething (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem has actually broken the three revert rule more than once to keep what he considered 'anti-GG bias' out of the article. He's really not the person to be pointing to as a shining beacon of neutrality. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

And? Weigh that with how much Masem has actually done to help the article, compared to you trying to trash the article because of your POV pushing, and we can see who we can trust more. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That's your opinion of my work and Masem's, which is tainted by your own very clear POV. It's a running theme on this page: editor with few or no contributions outside a topic arrives on the page, declares every editor who advocates for depicting this topic the way the preponderance of sources do 'biased,' and sets about making arguments with no basis in policy or reliable sources, as you have done here. I'm just trying to keep this article from being whitewashed by editors who don't understand or respect WP policy. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::: editor with few or no contributions outside a topic arrives on the page, Like yourself? The near entirety of your contributions have been to GamerGate for the last month and some odd days. I don't believe you have much claim to complain about that. Tutelary (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, nothing like myself: An established editor focusing on a single topic is not an SPA. Once an editor is well established with a large, diversified edit history, he or she can focus on single subjects for extended periods of time without being labeled an SPA. Try reading the whole page. As I've said several times now, aside from your semi-automated vandalism reverts, my contributions are more diverse than your own. It's interesting that you have very few contributions to this page other than your weak efforts to discredit me. Stop harrassing me, now, thank you. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

He didn't call you an SPA, your only getting really defensive over that. He is pointing out your hypocrisy over the situation. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You are, obviously, unaware of this editor's past comments about my editing history. This is a completely unfounded accusation that Tutelary has made several times now. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Much of the same thing I just said. You can search the archives. But it doesn't look good when a single editor is focusing solely and intently on a single article for a long period of time and complaining that other editors are doing the same. Very similar situations, yet a double standard is employed when it's your contributions rather than them. That's the point I'm trying to illustrate. .Tutelary (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Per the quote I just provided, that's not true. Now stop misrepresenting my editing history. Your spurt of edits in the last few minutes aside, your contributions here seem almost exclusively geared towards discussing contributors, rather than content. That's a much bigger problem than an editor with a diverse editing history editing one article exclusively for a period of time. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that discussing certain editors as "SPAs" as if trying to disregard their good faith contributions is much discussing of content, do you? Even if it's speckled in with content arguments, it's not appreciated. All I ask is to stop regarding the fact that an account may be an SPA (maybe take a gander at the closed WP:AN request Ryulong filed and see the list, 70% were not SPAs) in your arguments as an attempt to disregard their argument. As the wiki golden rule says (somewhere I bet you it does), comment on content, not the contributor. I'll do such notwithstanding other editors bringing up the topic of them first, even lightly. I really hate seeing newcomers be bitten, and these contentious topics do drive new contributors. As long as they follow wiki guidelines and policies, there's nothing really harmful about them. Tutelary (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like you don't really understand why SPAs are a problem, especially in large numbers - or more likely, don't care so long as they're pushing a POV you agree with. I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you: your concerns for the 'newbies' have been noted, but I'm not going to stop calling a spade a spade. Now stop following me around making off-base accusations. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe I've seen any anti-GG (or whatever position you want to call it, I know some people take fault at the 'anti gg' but w/e) SPAs contribute to the article, more pro-GG. Which sort of tells you stuff about whether they don't make accounts because the article already suits them well or that they're not as passionate, or the fact that Pro-GG see that the article is biased against them and wish to instill some type of balance. I also don't support breaking policy or guidelines, even for SPAs like you want to say I am. All I'm concerned about is fair and civil discussion; everyone's an equal, after all in here. Your position is noted as well. God speed and hope to contribute with you in the future (probably the coming hours/days). Tutelary (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, there's that argument again. It's a favorite of Masem's: 'there are so many gamergate POV pushers - it must be because the article is biased! Actions speak louder, always. Saying you want a 'fair and civil discussion' isn't a substitute for showing it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, thats a fact. You are not a moderate trying to write a good article, you have pushed this article to try to pertain to your POV, not to actually correspond with WP policy. You don't care about whitewashing, you care about trying to make a statement in this article. You have actively tried to remove LARGE sections of this article that you don't agree with, because of your POV, and that wasn't backed up by WP policy. So just own up and accept that you have a POV, because you cannot hide from it when it is obvious. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's see the diffs of my alleged content removals, please, because I think you may have me confused with someone else. I haven't denied that I have a POV: most people do about most things. I'm denying that my editing has been inappropriately biased. You can have a point of view without trying to insert bias into an article. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, where did I say you tried to -edit- something out? You have this tendency to try to change what people have actually said. Lets go back to the topic you started about trying to remove the ethics and journalistic things out. That was an obvious POV pushing that was away from WP policy, since there were plenty of sources, which is why it is still in. I think were done here now though, now that all your arguments about trying to actually help the article just got revealed to not be true. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Is that a 'large section of this article?' I didn't advocate for 'large sections' of the article to be removed: I advocated for changing the lede to avoid giving equal weight to the well-cited content about the movement's misogyny and the very poorly cited claims that the movement is about ethics in journalism, contending that while it is true that the movement claims to be about ethics in journalism, that is not the same thing as actually being concerned with ethics in journalism. For the former to be true, members of the movement merely have to make the claim, which they obviously have. For the latter, the movement's actual activities count, too, and the majority of our reliable sources not that those have had far less to do with ethics and far more to do with silencing women. That's a change that you may not like, but I cited policy and reliable sources to make the argument that it should be made nonetheless. That discussion was, predictably, derailed with the usual vague claims about 'anti-GG bias' in the article, but that's not evidence that my arguments were wrong: it's evidence that there is a serious problem with tendentious editing on this talk page. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Look, its 100% obvious why you proposed that. Stop trying to hide it. Hell, I still remember your comments from like a month and a half ago where you kept saying the movement is about harassing women and nothing about ethics (That was directed at me, BTW.). You seriously cannot fool me, it is obvious you are pushing a bias. Pleaseeeee stop trying to hide it, its kinda sad. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is obvious, or it should be: I proposed it because the preponderance of sources are not giving any degree of credibility to gamergate's claims that it is about ethics, and in fact an increasing number are taking active steps to disprove that claim. You can yell 'I'm rubber and you're glue' all you want, but facts are facts: I'm using sources and citing policy to support my changes. It doesn't matter if you think I'm 'anti-gamergate;' having a point of view is not the same thing as being a POV pusher.

Given 1) other experienced (not POV) editors have also edit warred - inadvertently or not (and which I have admit to accidentally doing before) - and 2) there is a huge different between edit warning and being neutral and/or biased, this is an unnecessary statement and not focused on the policy based aspects of the source. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree: when you're being pointed to as The Neutral Editor I think it is relevant. I'll note that you did in fact completely shrug off my comments on both occasions that I pointed out your 3RR violations to you: you claim others have done it as well, and maybe that's true, but you've done it exclusively to promote one point of view while presenting yourself as an unbiased editor and claiming bias in others' editing. My point in bringing this up has been that your editing pattern has shown a stronger bias than many of the editors who you yourself have labeled biased. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring and bias are two separate things on WP and while one with bias may edit war, they are considered separately. Edit warring is a "sin" which yes, I did once on this article and have not engaged in (outside of anything that will fall under the 3RR exceptions) and which I have apologized for, but so have others; it's water under the bridge which I won't point figured to others other and will forgive those problems too, so focusing on that point is not helping your case. And tell me exactly what "bias" I have? I'm not proGG, I'm not antiGG - I'm looking to make this a clinical treatment of the issue, which is naturally unbiased --MASEM (t) 02:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have apologized, I didn't see it, but that's beside the point: you are making vague complaints about 'too many quotes' and 'inserting bias' and being 'clinical' and 'detached' with no real substance. You've overused those words to the point of meaninglessness. My point, though, is simply that despite your very frequent claims that you are unbiased, your distinctly 'pro-GG' edit warring demonstrates that you are not. At the very best, you are no better in terms of 'neutrality' than any other editor and it's not appropriate to claim otherwise. Your constant vague claims of 'anti-GG' bias are a reflection of your own bias. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit. I have had people (on WP, experienced editors) agree there's a biasing problem here and I am approaching it neutrally (they just refused to get involved here due to the whole GG mess to start). I am absolutely not proGG, nor do I consider myself antiGG. I can see the right middle ground that we as a clinically neutral source is supposed to take. I've been very clear on what is wrong, with specific examples that apply overall to the article. The consensus to make this more neutral is there, but only a handful of editors are trying to control the bias strongly against proGG and have not looked to reach consensus. --MASEM (t) 02:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you have the support of unnamed non-participants. Well done. We'll see if the involved editors at WP:RSN agree with your neutral, unbiased rejection of a major mainstream publication as a reliable source based on an SPA's claim that it's evaluating its data in a biased way. -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The source is not saying 1=0 or that the sky is polka dot or anything else that is obviously wrong and so you cannot outright dismiss a reliable source using a professional analytics company, because you think they are wrong and you cannot see the data they used. Thats just flat against policies , turning WP:V and WP:OR on their head! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No 1=0? "The discrepancies there seem to suggest GamerGaters cares less about ethics and more about harassing women.". Less than 5% of GG hashtag replies were to those women (We can't see if it was pro or anti GG people who sent those, also), and much less than 1% are negative. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The reliable sources have analyzed the content and presented their interpretation. That you disagree with their sampling sizes, conclusions or whatever is irrelevant.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I don't care about the interpretation. They claimed what I quoted, but their method did not analyse anything that could come to that conclusion. They analyzed the difference in response(Positive, Negative, and neutral, which was less than 5% of all tweets and did not pull from all tweets, but only the tweets directed toward 6 people) between 6 people and then claimed that all of gamer gate is about harassing even though their experiment did not look at data that could come to that conclusion. It is a 1=0. PseudoSomething (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Since when was Newsweek an authority on statistics anyway? Halfhat (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

you are joking right? Newsweek is one of founding creators of the factoid data graph. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Newsweek is a reliable news source. That's really all that's relevant here. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Even granting its reliable status on this topic, I can't be happy with publishing information we know is false, even if it goes against the word of the policies I think this is a case of ignore all rules. Publishing what we know to be false will damage the article, and could even cause more anger, including on the talkpage. That said I question a newspaper's mathematical authority. Just as news sites aren't considered the best sources for science, but imagine one claiming to have done the study themselves, before publishing it only in their story. Halfhat (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Luckily, we don't know that it's false: we merely have an SPA claiming it is false based on their own independent analysis of the data presented. Accepting the word of any given Wikipedia editor over reliable sources runs completely contrary to Wikipedia policy. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at it yourself, it's rubbish. It doesn't even at a large number of the journalists, only a few, only one news site. And again, imagine Newsweek instead self-published a study on science, it'd never be accepted as reliable, if it was properly published experts could analyse the methods thoroughly for issues, and if found they'd be addressed. Halfhat (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

100% wrong. A source presenting something that is obviously factually wrong, even if everything else from that source is nominally reliable, can be challenged/ignored as a source. It is clear without even getting into detailed statistics (eg requiring no expertise in the field) that there's enough question and absent classification of the given data to beg their conclusion. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Newsweek is normally reliable, it is the data from Brandwatch - and whomever interpreted it - that is in question. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If Newsweek published it, then we go with it since they are RS. If another RS publishes something questioning the data and interpretations, we include that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we can reject sources if there are clear problems with their conclusions that are obvious to show wrong; if the analysis to show it wrong or questionable required more expert knowledge, then yes, we'd need a separate source to point that out. --MASEM (t) 02:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if it's entirety is entirely uncontested and true, I don't believe in this sort of article can we include anything but a small mention due to it only being a single source. Tutelary (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. We don't do that for any other source. This is an RS and belongs in the article with due weight. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We should not really do anything with these shoddy statistics. This is not a scientific study and its methodology and selection criteria are completely absurd. I imagine at least part of the problem is that Newsweek's staff are either ignorant or uninterested in other claims of corruption beyond the most popularly discussed one involving Grayson and therefore did not bother to include related queries in their data set. Here are two pieces providing a decent rebuttal, albeit these are not reliable sources, and a more detailed listing of various related tweets. None of that is authoritative, but it should be clear from reviewing more extensive data that this piece and its tweet analysis are utterly worthless. Since this does not appear to be getting a lot of widespread attention there is no real reason to consider this being of due weight.-The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: The main "result" is simply "Brandwatch found most tweets were neutral in sentiment", and it appears "most" (per the graph given) is on the order of 90+%. I am unsure whether the other anecdotal tidbits are usable without noting that apparent fact given in the Newsweek source. Collect (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it also about which individuals people were most preoccupied with? That seems to me to be the point of the article. Andreas JN 466 14:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Collect's summary is a serious oversimplification. The study found that the volume and content of the tweets it analysed were sufficient to constitute harassment. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to be assured, I read through the article again, and as long as we stick to their wording , which they say their conclusions are "suggested" by the data, it should be fine. eg "An analysis of two million GamerGate related tweets performed by Newsweek and Brandwatch showed that tweets towards Quinn, Sarkeesian, and Wu individually outnumbered those to male game journalists like Grayson, and they suggest that this demonstrates that GG is more about the harassment of female developers than the issues of ethics in journalism." (emphasis mine here to show that this is simply reporting what they say, making the inclusion acceptable; taking the emphasized words out would be the problem for inclusion). --MASEM (t) 15:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Andreas JN 466 15:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We should not be including this at all since it is a poor data set with poor methodology that has only been covered by one other outlet.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree that those statistics are completely flawed, 80% of those tweets are considered "neutral" according to them, there's no explanation on how to repeat the study which is a must and any even mediocre introduction to statistics will tell you it's neccesary to state that Loganmac (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

sorry, self appointed analytics experts dont get to flip WP:V and WP:OR on their heads and require your approval to be considered accurate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Medium published an article yesterday by Andy Baio with more Twitter analysis. In it, he gets confirmation from Brandwatch that the 90% was actually "undetermined"—that is, their computers couldn't tell if the user was pro- or anti-GG—rather than the Tweets being "neutral". Woodroar (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please tell me how this is a BLP issue

[3]

Because if the general accusation of a broad group of people and no individual about something is a BLP issue, then the bulk of this article is a BLP issue against the proGG side as well. You can't have it both ways. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed as usual. BLP is not applicable to amorphous groups such as "game journalists and developers" if it doesn't apply to "Gamergater supporters".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

if we imply that the false accusations against Zoe Quinn are anything other than that then it is a BLP issue. Feel free to look for an alternate wording that seperates out other concrete concerns GamerGate have expressed. Artw (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest reading the diff before commenting. It does not concern the Quinn allegations.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec)And while ArtW commented over at the ArbCom case with this [4], the statement is about more than just one allegation of conflict of interest. If the statement was just about Quinn's COI, yes, I agree we have to mark it as dismissed or proven wrong or whatever. But there are a larger number of issues the proGG side have presented, not targetted at any one person, so you cannot say that all of those have been dismissed, particularly when several sites altered policies in response and that they have self-identified that they have several ethics issues they know exist and would love to fix but the nature of the industry makes it hard to. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you're in a position to complain about inaccurate edit summaries, considering that you reverted me using the old canard about using sources on the ethical concerns that gamergate should find more interesting than a relatively minor indie dev's sex lives if they were really about ethics to prove that gamergate is about ethics. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia cannot take that as its voice. We are to be neutral. And the statement in question was about several ethical allegations, not just the singular one at Quinn. While Quinn's has clearly been dismissed, others still exist and some even affirmed by the press, so they are are not all "false" or the like. That's exactly what I had in my edit summary. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but we can't do original research here. Using the sources that have pointed out ethical concerns that gamergate could be talking about but isn't to prove that gamergate is really about ethics is WP:SYNTH, because you're patching together two sourced facts ('gamergate says its about ethics' and 'ethical issues exist') to try to prove a point that your sources do not support. Just because green cheese exists it doesn't mean the moon is made of it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between stating in Wikipedia's voice that GG was never about ethics and all about harassment, and stating that the majority of the press believe GG was never about ethics and all about harassment. Since there's no evidence to prove, only conclusions that it is, the former cannot be used to develop the article. That's not SYNTH at all. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not 'stated in Wikipedia's voice that GG was never about ethics and all about harassment.' I'm merely qualifying the movement's ethics claims as 'claims' because that's how the sources we have describe them. I'm not calling them 'false,' I'm just avoiding us saying in Wikipedia's voice that they are true, because we don't have sources for that type of statement. And I didn't say your removal of the entirely appropriate and sourced qualifiers are 'synth;' I said your repeated references to genuine ethical issues as if they prove that gamergate is really about ethics are 'synth.' They are: if our sources only say 'A' and 'B' and don't say they equal 'C,' we can't say that either. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We've discussed this at length elsewhere, so I don't think you have any cause to be surprised. WP:BLP is a serious policy and we should not be brushing up against violating it even we indirectly reference the subject. Artw (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Either BLP applies to all broad groups evenly (meaning that the proGG side has to be treated with the same respect you are giving the journalist side) or it doesn't apply to groups at all. And I'm pretty sure it is the latter based on the past discussions. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You can attempt to apply that logic if you like, I doubt it will go far. In the meantime feel free to trying rewording the statement that seperates out the "valid" concerns of GamerGate from the ones relating to Quinn. Artw (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to, without unnecessarily complicating and biasing the lead (as one would have to talk about Quinn first to then exclude that). The version I had neither affirms or denies that any allegation of COI interest was true, false, or disproven, and given that we then talk about the specific one towards Quinn and mention of its being proven wrong shortly after, that removes any possible interpretation of BLP in that. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It does just seem like policy abuse to try to use BLP there. It should be obvious where I stand here, I just ask for civility, insults and unsubstantiated allegations just drag the conversation down a pit. Halfhat (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, you were just involved in a discussion of this so the BLP implications should not come as a surprise. As for civility I would suggest you stop hitting your reset button so much so people don't have to keep having the same boring conversations. Artw (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no need for that. I think the problem is that most convo's end in stalemate rather than a resolution, so the dispute just creates another conversation. Halfhat (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that, according to many of our sources—On the Media, Vox, Wired, etc.—the GamerGate movement claims to be about general "ethics in journalism" but is focusing only on a handful of very specific people, most of them women. We discuss this in the article. Obviously, BLP doesn't apply to unnamed "journalists" as a whole, but it does apply when "journalism" is actually "a smokescreen for the misogynistic harassment of Quinn and others". Imagine for a moment that this movement was ostensibly about "reform of criminals" but focused only on a very small number of named living persons who hadn't even been convicted of crimes, and that this duplicity was widely covered in the media. BLP wouldn't require that we use words like "alleged" and "purported" in claims about an unnamed group, but let's get real, that's not what—who—this is about. GamerGate is naming names, and per BLP that that certainly does require a more conservative approach. Woodroar (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Not only is gamergate focusing on women, they are not even journalists so they rightly see the "journalistic ethics" as a complete sham. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

seriously, wtf

[5]. Please explain how this edit is not grossly insulting to the human beings that are proGG supporters but not part of the harassment, and how this does not twist the sourcing to make the antiGG side look like saints? This unilateral push to fully discredit the proGG side when this has not yet been done in RSes is completely against policy. --MASEM (t) 01:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's accurate to what's happened. Enough sugar coating already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Because this is what we have to deal with when the article wasn't even at the state it is right now. Accounts that haven't been used in nearly a year going "look at this guy being mean because he won't let me skew the article into my own POV". Why I keep getting trapped in these stupid edit wars. I was wrong. The article should be locked down again. And then we weed out the users who are not here to properly adhere to the rules and regulations of this website and instead use it to further the external dispute.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No, they aren't doing that, they are editing to remove your biased POV. You obviously have little care for who you insult on the proGG side, creating a bias that you shouldn't be editing this article with. What is changed is not accurate to the sources - the mainstream sources do not describe the event with that much bile or hatred. And we do sugar coat as to stay remain neutral and clinical. --MASEM (t) 01:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

One editor added a link to a blog calling itself the "Gamergate Wiki" that had was full of the sex scandal narrative and then he began edit warring over the use of the citation of Kotaku's refutation. My actions in all of the situations on this page are not due to a biased POV so don't you start accusing me either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing the SPS - that's fine. Rewriting to accuss the entirity of the proGG for harassment and misogyny when we have sources that affirm it is likely only a subset is bogus. And yes, your actions clearly speak to a bias that you refuse to even consider the possibility that anything said by proGGers could even be true. WP doesn't evaluate statements to determine if they are true or not (that's OR), we summarize sources, and the best mainstream sources do not insult the proGG like you are doing; add in WP:OWN behavior, as well as the extra-ordinary factor that your actions here are influencing people offsite to participate, and that's probably a good side you should leave this alone for a while. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't rewrite it. And there's been barely anything done by anyone with a pro-GG POV to constructively edit the article. It's been constant cries of bias and POV when everyone who has been active on Wikipedia and responding to your RFC have recognized that the article as it stands is either fine or it's giving too much credence to the pro-GG side when that is not covered in reliable sources. And what one group of people thinks of me off-site is only my problem. If I can deal with /m/ thinking I'm the scourge of all the shitty Kamen Rider Wikias and every anon who uses a translation featured on this website, I can deal with KotakuInAction and /gg/ finding my old shitty geocities website, as has already happened it seems.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Your attitude here is creating a vicious circle that will only get worse if nothing changes in the approach this article takes and/or your approach. Your actions are driving editors to come here in earnest ways to try to fix this. You report them as SPAs, and then keep editing this further away from those views, creating more interested persons in coming to fix this. That's an extra-ordinary case of disruption that you do have control over - by stepping back from the article for a time. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

So now you're victim blaming?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that you have said yourself you're well aware that SPAs are coming here because of you, so you should be acting to try to avoid that. --MASEM (t) 02:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No. People have been coming after me on social media because of what I've said here. People are coming here because Loganmac keeps making threads on Reddit complaining when things aren't going his way. You're based Masem now and Reddit thinks I'm bipolar and/or more than one person.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a link? Retartist (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's front page of /r/KotakuInAction. Just ctrl+F for Masem.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What annoys me is that stuff about us gets posted and we may not know about it. Can someone ping me next time this happens? Retartist (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, it is quite clear it is *you* who are not following Wikiepdia's rules concerning NPOV. Yes, the majority of the mainstream media have a negative opinion of Gamergate. That most certainly does not mean that it is incumbent upon editors to therefore create an article with a negative tone about Gamergate. If anything, WP:NPOV means we should be producing an article that is *descriptive*, not *evaluative*. Save the evaluation and editorializing for the "Media Response" section, where, indeed, it can be pointed out that the majority of media sources have evaluated the phenomenon quite negatively. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"look at this guy being mean because he won't let me skew the article into my own POV". Way to assume bad faith based on no evidence whatsoever. I'd like to see an article that adheres to WP:NPOV, not one that in any way favors the Gamergate movement.Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The rules are WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS. Because positive coverage of the supporters of the Gamergate movement does not really seem to exist in reliable sources, we cannot spend much time on the article covering it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You miss the point. There's ample opportunity not to editorialize at all, yet you insist on giving the article a slant toward anti-Gamergate *opinion* just because that happens to be how much of the press is spinning it. WP:NPOV means avoidance of injecting editorial opinion to the greatest degree possible. You have absolutely not adhered to this. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This is how things are covered in reliable sources that aren't the dreaded Gawker or Polygon websites. The fact that it upsets people that their movement is seen this way does not mean that Wikipedia should be forced to sterilize coverage compared to every source it uses. The problem does not lie with Wikipedia or its users. It lies with the movement itself and how it presents itself to the world, which is a haphazard and uncentralized way that makes it impossible for anyone to determine what they really want.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding biased language and blatant editorializing is not "sterilizing" the article. BTW, I suggest you have a look at the articles on Tea Party movement, Occupy movement, and Creationism, all of which are controversial movements, spoken of quite badly in some segments of the media, yet somehow Wikipedia manages to cover these without blatant bias and negative editorializing. Why can't we do that here? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Or even our articles on people/groups clearly "hated" like ISIL, Ku Klux Klan, Charles Manson or Adolf Hilter. Yes, we do have to mention their misdeads and why society does not look favorable at them, but they are given the benefit of an encyclopedic treatment of their history and other events without a negative light. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to reflect the way this is reflected in the media. Perhaps TaraInDC's edit wasn't the best, but that doesn't make any of the other edits that have taken place tonight by people arguably on the other side any better. The constant removal of the Kotaku ref. The constant insistences that the descriptions of the acts as misogyny be demoted to being the opinion when it's a common theme in reliable sources. Arguing over the word "discredited" when it is mostly used to refer to the original claims of corruption as nothing else has come about. I'm not going to be made a scapegoat because I'm up at ungodly hours of the night contesting these kinds of edits.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Trust me, I'm not saying that the above edit is the only bad thing going on, but the amount of edits that continue to sneak in more and more "pro-antiGG" propaganda is outweighing the attempts to remove valid sourcing and statements otherwise. Both types of edits are troublesome, but us experienced users should know a lot better not to make them. --MASEM (t) 02:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I know most of my edits that could feasibly be under this umbra of yours have been to the concerns raised by various uninvolved editors throughout the discussions here and on the various other forums of discussion on Wikipedia where people have said that even in this state the article gives too much credence to Gamergate's "it's about ethics" line. And it's hard to keep dealing with the complaints that ascribing "misogyny" as an issue in Wikipedia's voice and the claims that it's a slur.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, the possibility that George Bush was responsible for 19 terrorists slamming into 4 domestic targets should be in the lead of 9/11. Points of view are covered proportionately and fairly. That does not mean "equally". Tarc (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Bad analogy. That would be if we pushed GG into an article like video game journalism. The better example is that we have an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories which in no way insults those that might believes though those provides all appropriate counterevidence that these are bogus. --MASEM (t) 02:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a solid edit, conforms to WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, do you have a specific policy based problem with it? Artw (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTSOAPBOX - we cannot be a spokemouth for the antiGG and ignore the POV of the proGG that is documented. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The way the New York Times, CNN, and the BBC cover this is not using this a sa soapbox.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We are not a newspaper. We are not here to sensationalize anything. It is very easy to drum up views when you report those that harassed women out of their homes in a very negative light, but we're not here for popularity. We are here to given an encyclopedic treatment of the news, which means we cannot sensationalize things. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

How do you suggest that we approach this issue when every one who has come here due to the RFC feels that the "it's about issues of misogyny and sexism in the gaming community, and also concerns of ethics violations in video game journalism" version of the lede gives the pro-GG side undue weight?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not what the RFC was about nor is there any type of unanimity that you think is there. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That may not be what it was about but there are plenty of uninvolved editors appearing who raise the issue.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Correction, issues are not just with the lede but with the apparent over-representation of the pro-GG side.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? That edit was soapboxy? Not even close. While we're at it I don't think someone who has spent the last few days arguing that we abandon all policy and edit the article according to some scheme they've dreamed up themselves gets to lecture anybody on POV or policy. Artw (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never said anything about abandoning any policy. Everything I've said falls with all core content policies including UNDUE/WEIGHT, which I have explained several times. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

And if you cannot see how it is a soapbox for the antiGG side, put yourself in the shoes of a proGG person that did not participate in the harassment but wants to promote improved ethics in journalism, and tell me how that is not a grossly insulting twisting of what the sources says. --MASEM (t) 02:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the OP: The biggest favor Wikipedia could perform for the "human beings that are proGG supporters but not part of the harassment" would be to bluntly describe the key facts, as was done in the diff provided in the OP. Fortunately, standard procedures coincide with that favor. Re NOTSOAPBOX: Apart from reliable sources, the obvious situation is that this article would not exist if it concerned opinions regarding journalistic ethics. It is also obvious that people can make up reasons to justify gamergate, but it is not Wikipedia's role to promote those views. The language of independent secondary sources should be used. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Right now the article is WP:SOAPBOX for anti-Gamergate, and justifying this by appealing to the overwhelmingly anti-Gamergate coverage in the mainstream media. I'm sorry, but just because a point of view is held by a large number of people, or a large number of respectable media sources does not mean we should be injecting editorializing into the article in favor of that point of view. WP:NPOV (nor even WP:FRINGE) does not imply majoritarian POV pushing is justified. And as I've stated repeatedly, there's ample opportunity to use unbiased language here, which is pretty far from seeking out an artificial "middle". This is in fact how the majority of well-written Wikipedia article on controversial topics and movements are done. See the Tea Party movement article for a good example. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree completely with Masem and Blue's views. The intro paragraph has veered into further absurdity.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm just trying different wordings hoping to find a way to present the ethics issue that follows the actual sources we have for the topic and that will be palatable enough to the anti-GG pov pushers that it's not instantly reverted. The arguments have all been made on this talk page again and again and the pro-gamergate crowd are outright stonewalling any attempt at progress with claims of bias that have no basis in policy. The fact is that whether the worst harassers are a 'small subset' or not, the campaign is not concerned with any legitimate ethics problems. Gamergate spends a lot of time hassling women who are not particularly powerful in the industry, a lot of time telling everyone who will listen that it's about ethics, and a little time making vague and unsubstantiated claims of ethical problems. This is why we have no reliable sources for any genuine work towards improving ethics in journalism, and why our reliable sources either say only that the movement claims to be concerned with ethics and then moves on to the better sourced infromation about its harrassment of women, or actively debunk the claims in various ways. This has to change. Your preferred version does not meet policy. If you don't like my changes to the lede, suggest a way to properly portray the ethics angle as a claim, because that's all we have sources for. Would you prefer to remove the ethics claims from the lede altogether and address them in more detail later? -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Going back to my earlier revert issues with Ryulong, I was actually quite happy with "claims of journalistic ethics concerns in the online gaming press". What I was not OK with was "widely discredited claims of journalistic ethics concerns in the online gaming press". "Claim" is great - it's neutral language this article needs a hell of a lot more of. My main difference is that I would also put the "misogyny" of Gamergate on the level of "claim" rather than undisputed fact. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The movement's misogynistic harassment is extremely well cited, and is in fact the only reason this article passes the WP:GNG at all. So arguing for treating them both as 'claims' is no better than treating them both as 'facts.' There's no obligation to treat both 'sides' the same: we have to present them both the way the sources do. Our sources for the ethics angle have always treated it as a claim if they mentioned it at all, and increasingly are actually debunking it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

As I keep repeating, and being ignored on, there's in fact no obligation to repeat majoritarian *editorial* slant, and every reason to avoid it, per WP:NPOV. The latter guidelines on avoiding inflammatory language and all the rest still apply, even if the majority of sources you find have a negative spin on the issue. Once again, *describe* the issue, don't *editorialize* a point of view. And I would say, a flat out statement of "Gamergate is intrinsically misogynist" is exactly that. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Further note: For example, this editorial [6] is being treated as an unquestioned "factual" source on the "misogyny" of gamer culture. Venture Beat (and why is this source more "reputable" than much of what's been rejected as source material?) is welcome to that opinion, but it should be treated as such, an opinion. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No. We say what the sources do. Period. Policy does not allow us to ignore aspects of the sources we don't like, so you can't simply handwave away reliable news sources by claiming they're 'editorialized.' The 'flat statement' that you cited does not in fact appear, from what I can tell: contrast it with what the lede actually says: "resulting in increased attention to ingrained issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community." Does it say 'gamergate is intrinsically misogynistic?' No. So stop beating up straw men.

As for your complaint about the word 'ingrained,' that is the result of a completely absurd previous battle over the lede. A large number of direct quotes in this article are the result of tendentious disputes over wording: iirc that particular one resulted from someone taking issue with us paraphrasing the word 'long-noted' to 'long-standing.' This is the kind of thing that happens when a noisy horde of POV warriors are permitted to hold back progress on an article. That is by no means the only source for the movement's misogynistic harassment, though, so it's something of a red herring here. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, did you just call me a "POV warrior"? I'm going to note that as a pretty blatant violation of WP:CIVIL, and I'll take this to the appropriate noticeboard if you're going to keep up with the name-calling. I am not a "POV warrior", if anything, I'm trying to get this back to some state of neutrality. If a clique of pro-Gamergaters slanted this article in the opposite direction, I'd try to push it back to neutrality as well. As for the above, I understand Wikipedia policy quite well, and I understand WP:FRINGE. I also understand something you don't seem to, notably, the difference between news reporting and editorial in journalism, including from the same sites/publications. A New York Times article is treated differently from a New York Times editorial. This is stated Wikipedia policy per WP:NEWSORG:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Expecting adherence to this policy does not make me a "POV warrior". Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is a wonderful example of why we have so many quotes in the article. We've hashed and rehashed the "ingrained/longstanding/whatever" issue over and over again, paraphrasing reliable sources. Diego Moya swooped in and removed the word "long-standing" as "not supported by the source," when it is a clearly-acceptable paraphrase of the source's "long-documented" wording. So I've replaced it with a direct quote that cannot possibly be challenged as "not supported by the source." If you want fewer quotes, stop deleting reasonable paraphrasing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is why wording that doesn't exist in the references and that imply a POV that only exist in the mind of editors pushing it will always be challenged. "Long-standing" is not reasonable, and has never been - it has been extensively disputed, so reinstating it into the article is simply unnaceptable, and you should have known it. Had you actually listened to Iamcuriousblue's concern that we don't need a qualifier at all, and acted upon it by leaving my edit intact, we wouldn't have need the new direct quotation. It takes two to tango. Diego (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The qualifier is significant, has had longstanding support in some form, and is necessary to tell readers that the issue predates Gamergate.

Your argument is that "longstanding" isn't an acceptable paraphrase of "long-documented"? I don't even. Just don't come back here complaining about "excessive quotes." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't Ryulong get tired of getting into a new shitstorm every single day? It even looks like he enjoys it. Take a 1 week break, see how things get better and evaluate your usefulness to the article Loganmac (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Logan, do you do anything around here but take snipes at other editors? I can not believe that you only yesterday had the nerve to shoo off another editors comments about attempts to intimate them into silence with 'NOTFORUM' when you're behaving like this. Go back to reddit if you don't want to do anything but talk shit. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please tell me that a guy saying "I got doxxed by 8chan" was in any way or form a reasonable concern on the topic of the article, because if that is so then you clearly don't know a lot about policies as you claim. The Devil Advocate closed the discussion like 10 seconds after I reverted him. Also, how do you know I'm from reddit, did you try look up my username? Are you sure that username is mine? Am I not allowed to criticize Wikipedia? And your statement saying I do "nothing but talk shit" is a little off don't you think, or have you ignored my actual suggestions? And yet again this is further getting a moot discussion that has nothing to do with the article Loganmac (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We know you're from Reddit because Bosstopher informed us all that he found your thread basically attacking him in September and I don't recall you denying you posted it then.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, my friends keep showing me all the threads you've been writing about me on KotakuInAction.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It was at least as relevant as the comment you made just above. You've been told repeatedly that this is not a forum, and it's quite bad enough that you ignore those comments and continue to chatter away, but using that same guideline to dismiss another editor's legitimate concerns? You're a waste.

I used reddit as an example of the type of place where your idle one-liner insults are common. Not reddit? Great. 4chan. Wherever. I don't care. If you want to chat, go someplace that is for chatting. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Preventing extremely biased editors from removing valid sources or adding incredibly invalid sources is useful, is it not? Are my article contributions such as the WikiLeaks section or these various additions so problematic that it means I should be banned? Maybe my attempt to rewrite the lead yesterday (or two days ago, whenever it is from this posting) was a bit much, but all anyone sees or says they see are the number of edits I make and complain about that number rather than actual content I've contributed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Does any anti-gg people actually read the rest of the NOPOV policy? Or just BALSPS? There is still WP:YESPOV which states:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice.

and

Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize.

and then there is WP:IMPARTIAL which states:

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view.

NOWHERE does WP:BALASPS say that since most of the RS's present one opinion; wikipedia has to have that opinion too. Retartist (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The flaw in your thinking here is the apparent assumption that pointing out gamergate's misogynistic harassment can only ever be 'opinion.' We are not merely sourcing this from opinion pieces, but from mainstream news. We're not editorializing, we're just describing the topic the way our sources do. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you are sourcing from opinion pieces and treating them as the equivalent as news stories. That's a big part of the problem here. Also, even if the article takes a strongly opinionated tone, that does not mean you carry that language over into the Wikipedia article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That's simply not true. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We can document that harassment did indeed occur, but we can't outright call it misogynistic without attributing it as the opinion of someone. See WP:LABELS. We can call Hitler a nazi but we can't outright say that he is evil, instead we attribute that to historians, philosophers, etc. Muscat Hoe (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Just for fun compare the lead of the Hitler article to this one. Even Hitler comes off better looking than GamerGate. Even when the absolute majority of historians regard him as a synonim of evil, in the article he's treated, as it should be, neutrally and historically Loganmac (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. To bring this back into bounds, compare this article to the one on Tea Party movement. Best practices for treating controversial topics are well established on Wikipedia, and the current state of this article is wholly going against established precedent here. Once again, I'll state that I'm not some "single purpose account" who doesn't understand the rules of Wikipedia. I understand them quite well, in fact, perhaps better than those who are defending the current abysmally biased state of this article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Comparisons to other articles are irrelevant. We're talking about this article. There is no one template for how to discuss all controversial articles: all of them have to be considered individually and written based on the sources available. Believe it or not, there are stronger sources for the Tea Party's claimed aims than there are for gamergate's. These types of arguments may be well received in the gamergate echo chamber, but pointing to other articles and saying 'you make us sound worse than THIS!' is not going to prove a thing here, because that alone does not demonstrate that the sources available for the two topics are comparable. It does not matter if you think that gamergate is better than this subject or should be portrayed the way that one is: what matters is what the sources say.-- TaraInDC (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems you were a little late with that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Putting aside your uncivil commentary about "Gamergate echo chamber", I think comparison with other articles is *wholly* relevant. If Wikipedia does not work on precedent, what basis do we have for interpreting policy? More importantly, I'm not making an "other crap exists" argument, but the very opposite. I'm saying good articles on controversial topics exist, and best practices on Wikipedia exist, and that they are not being followed here. Your point on Tea Party Press vs Gamergate press is well taken. Nevertheless, one need only look at the article on Creationism. As a biologist, I'm acutely aware that this idea is pure bunk rejected by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Acceptance of it is a fringe opinion. Yet somehow, the article manages to keep a neutral tone and NPOV principles are upheld to the greatest degree possible. The insistence here seems to be that because the press is anti-GG often in very harsh terms, the tone of this article must be denunciatory toward Gamergate to the strongest extent possible. GRANTED, this article must be sourced from largely anti-GG coverage and repeat the facts as reported. I am not arguing against that. HOWEVER, this does not mean we import NPOV tone and inflammatory language from the articles. Wikipedia is not RationalWiki and articles should not take a partisan tone. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It most certainly is, TaraInDC. This [7] is an opinion piece. It even says so at the top of the article. It is being used to source statements of fact. I've already explained how this is violation of stated policy in WP:NEWSORG. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Then you'll be satisfied if I replace "ingrained" with "long-standing" and "seemingly-intractable", as per The Washington Post? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You left out "much debated", but in any event, even "long standing" is less biased that "ingrained". But the larger question as to why we need to be using intensifiers and strong adjectives that unnecessarily take the article *farther* away from NPOV language so clearly called for in Wikipedia's rules. Or are you going to argue what some others have been arguing, namely that we are somehow obliged to import bias in tone from the source articles, even when we have the option of phrasing those statements in a much more neutral manner. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to explain again what part of NPOV prohibits us from using appropriately-sourced language to describe something, and your assertion that the source article has a "bias in tone" is nothing more than your personal opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Your statement is bizarre. So, basically, you should be allowed to use as biased of language as you want as long as you "source" it to a reliable source? There are two issues being conflated under the issue of NPOV 1) The fact that this article is being sourced from mainstream media sources that are overwhelmingly negative toward Gamergate, and that the presentation of facts in this article is going to some degree reflect that. That is what it is, and I'm not disputing that. Whereas 2) The idea that because the mainstream media is overwhelmingly condemnatory in tone toward Gamergate, this article must adopt the same *editorial* slant and tone. Hence, use of blatantly POV language like "'widely discredited' claims about journalistic ethics. (Thankfully, this is now gone, but not after several editors fought hard for it.) The degree of doubling down on language condemning Gamergate is wholly uncalled for and expressly counter to WP:NPOV, even toward a so-called "fringe" POV. The POV of 2 definitely does not follow from 1, and I'm tired of editors claiming that it somehow does. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 08:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

And I already addressed that one example and explained how it came to be in the article: it's a product of pro-Gamergate bias. Your adversarial tone here is extremely unhelpful: "you are citing opinion pieces," whether you mean me personally or 'anti-GG' editors in general, is inaccurate. As I said, that is not by any means the only article that we're using to source the claims you're disputing. It was on the front page of the new york times for crying out loud. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I meant the "collective you", but in any event, changed that almost immediately when I read the accusatory tone of it, before you even noted it here. My apologies for not catching that before it went live. In any event, once again, I'm noting that the source that's being used to justify describing gamer culture as one of ingrained misogyny is an op-ed, and I've pointed to Wikipedia's policy on use of opinion sources. Unless you have any actual objection based on Wikipedia *policy*, the only thing left to do is rewrite that clearly biased and improperly sourced statement, which I have every intention of doing. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You want it reverted to the previous, even better cited wording, that's fine, but bear in mind that this is wording is a compromise based on the result of a previous discussion: I don't particularly care about that one way or the other, because my concern here is some editors' insistence that we must treat the comments about misogyny as 'opinion.' Nitpicking over this one word as if it disproves what I said above is absurd. The point you were attempting to respond to stands: the misogynistic behavior of the movement is much better cited than the ethics angle, and the former does not need to be qualified in the way the latter does. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. That edit is accurately representing the sources of the article. Truth hurts. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed what it says at the top of the page?:

Please be calm and civil when you make comments or when you present evidence, and avoid personal attacks. Please be patient as we work toward resolution of the issues in a peaceful, respectful manner.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamcuriousblue (talk • contribs) 05:50, 28 October 2014

Do you have a comment regarding the fact that the edit accurately represents the source? Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That's some seriously loaded and over emotive writing. Halfhat (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's about ethics in gaming journalism is now a joke meme, I think it's time to give up on that one. In general it seems like undue influence of "SJWs" has replaced that as GamerGates stated focus anyway. Artw (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the lack of user feedback + proposed solution

GG is notoriously hard to explain, and I concerned that most of us already understand it, so it's hard to tell if people can understand it without their comments. Now I understand why the talk page was semi protected, and I think we should keep it that way to prevent disruption, however I think we should create a second open talk page for user feedback, there will be a number of answered questions etc. but we can ignore them easier, so only people that are in the right mood will answer them, and if you find it frustrating you can ignore it completely, while contributing here. Halfhat (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

They would disregard all that feedback as SPAs I'm sure Loganmac (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Griping about what 'they' would do is not constructive and adds nothing to the discussion. Please be more constructive in your contributions. Omegastar (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not hard to explain any more. Reliable sources are more and more coming to the same conclusion - it is an " on-going troll crusade known as #gamergate wherein a small rabble is using a trumped up scandal as cover for a full on attack on female game makers and game critics. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That point has already been extensively covered on this page. But there are obviously numerous people who identify with GamerGate who are clearly not trolls or mysoginists. Perhaps sources should be found that explain this part of GamersGate? Omegastar (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be great if people would start providing sources to back up their attempts to minimize the movement's misogyny, but the fact is that the primary reason they don't is because there aren't any. We have sources for the fact that gamergaters claim their movement is about ethics in journalism, but none that treat it as anything more than a claim; the sources that exist are almost exclusively pertaining to the harassment aspect. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Where did I say I wanted to minimize the movement's misogyny?Omegastar (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Cut it out now, all of you, this is not a forum to argue about GamerGate. These arguments help no one. Halfhat (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it, like I'm said I'm more concerned about people being confused. Halfhat (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, this Talk page is protected because of the frequency of BLP violations, not because we'd rather avoid getting or responding to feedback. Sadly, a separate page for feedback would only be another page to watch for BLP concerns. Woodroar (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Good point, I thought it was more just because of the repetitive unconstructive comments for new users. Though could there not be a report link at the top? That way anyone reading it could flag up a BLP violation. Halfhat (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the software has that capability. We'd have to do what we do now, manually report each instance to BLPN or ANI and find someone to REVDEL the comments. We do have admins watching the page, but the discussion often moves too fast to catch violations, and that's with it protected. The MediaWiki software is great for a number of different things, but forum moderation is not one of them. Woodroar (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The main feedback that I have (and that I've seen other editors give and be shot down from both sides) is that the article is a hot mess. It's suffused with needless quotes, high on its own sense of complexity and importance (so we've got a background section that's longer than it needs to be and several pseudo-background sections which drag on just as long), and the prose is dreadful (this coming from an editor notoriously bad at prose). I know why these problems arise but we've got to stop shitting on editors leaving comments complaining about the length or the complexity and start taking the complaints at face value. Protonk (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Adobe statement on the movement

http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2014/10/when-anti-bullying-efforts-backfire.html?adbid=527179560870096896&adbpl=tw&adbpr=63786611&scid=social34572897

Refered to here http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/28/7086001/adobe-says-anti-bullying-tweet-backfired-distances-from-gamergate Halfhat (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Already added. And used to trim that section down a bit, as it was way too long and trivial. Protonk (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

TFYC, #NotYourShield 'undue' weight

Since there's the anchor that this all started with the harassment of ZQ, and these two topics were among the same set of catalysts triggering the movement, it's not undue to have these sections in the page. Q ^{T C} 00:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

TFYC appear to be chancers who glommed on to GamerGate in order to promote themselves, and by covering them we are assisting in that, so I am fully in favor of ditching that entire section. Artw (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Here you go: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Does that answer your question?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(c/e) WP:BALASPS No, we go by what the reliable sources say about this. As of the time has passed the reliable sources no longer see them as major points- no one has covered them in weeks. For us to call BOTH of them out as stand alone sections is WP:STRUCTURE structure violation-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

"False allegations were made against Zoe Quinn" pretty much covers it and we already have that. Artw (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD, are you proposing we delete all content relating to 'too old' of sources? That's essentially what you're trying to say of TFYC and NotYourShield, because apparently, not being covered in recent news source = immediate deletion of due weight and of the article. I guess in 6 months we'll just have to delete the GamerGate page, then? Because no one continues to cover it? Tutelary (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

What I am saying that as time goes on an reliable sources reassess what gamergate is, we need to follow their lead. as time is going on the majority of sources are clearly not covering these as important aspects, and at the best, they were minor points of coverage to begin with. Keeping them as stand alone sections is WP:STRUCTURE failing to give them appropriate weight and position in regards to the topic as it is currently seen.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit reluctant to let #notYourShield go as it's the only place we discuss the role of the various boards in directing the Twitter campaign. Artw (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I will argue that to some extent both of these topics have not had the significance in the narrative today as they did a month ago, and could be trimmed down to the more basic facts. Definitely not removed entirely as they are important, but we simply don't need to have proseline-type discussions of these. --MASEM (t) 01:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

TFYC is actually key to the GamerGate article as it prompted the creation of Vivian James and that character is a widespread symbol of GamerGate. We should not be judging the contents of the entire article on the basis of recent coverage. Even amidst the flurry of coverage TFYC still pops up with significant mentions as in several articles I linked above from this month. I would also note that we should consider the redundancy of content in sources. When you have a hundred different reports over a week about the exact same incident of harassment concerning a single person, we cannot treat these as thorough review pieces of GamerGate as a whole. Much of the coverage editors are using to assign weight are highly-opinionated pieces commenting on some new occurrence and should not be treated with greater weight than pieces that seek to provide a thorough overview of events.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Vivian James is your rationale? NOBODY mentions that. At ALL. With regards to WP:RECENTISM , that is what resulted in these sections being added in the first place. They were NEVER a significant portion of the discussion from the reliable third parties. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You are seriously out of touch if you think Vivian James is an insignificant part of the Gamergate controversy. She's even acknowledged by the anti-Gamergate side: they take issue with Gamergate using a female avatar to represent their cause, seeing this as unrealistic. Tezero (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Show me one mainstream reliable source in the past 2weeks that has mentioned VJ in its overview of what is important about gamergate. for wikipedia, what some insiders in an amorphous and leaderless campaign think is "important" is irrelevant when the outside world takes no interest. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, what does it have "in the past 2 weeks"? Read [[[WP:RECENTISM]] Loganmac (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Red! How are you doing?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I HAVE read WP:RECENTISM and I have read many of the recently published mainstream articles giving current view ALL of the history of Gamergate and they are not covering the astroturfed NOTYOURSHIELD nor the cute little mascot. There was only a brief period where those were being covered and it was at that time that the topics were added and given full sections which was now clearly a WP:RECENTISM violation .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, golly gee, Red, "astroturfed" you say? Only the real hardcore anti-GamerGaters use that completely inaccurate term to describe anything involving GamerGate. I mean, even if one went with NotYouShield being a contrivance of a 4chan conspiracy, which is demonstrably false, it would still not be astroturfing since a bunch of random nobodies on 4chan making anything is still very much a grassroots action.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

yes, astroturfed i say . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

And if by those links you are suggesting that we need to reformat our article so that it presents gamergate as a hate group,or no more than a front for trolling and abuse with a single line about the mascot, i am all for that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:Recentism does not apply here. A glance at Twitter shows that the hashtag is still quite active, and so readers should expect to find coverage in this article. Likewise with The Fine Young Capitalists, who are currently in development of a game associated with this article's topic.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It is very clear that WP:RECENTISM applies here. content and claims that were given "some" attention in the run up have over the "longer view" shown to be irrelevant to how the reliable sources are now looking at the subject. It will continue to be so over the next 6 months -year or so until academic studies start coalescing on what happened, what was important and where the impact actually has been (and I will give you dollars to doughnuts that the "impact" has not been in ferreting out "unethical journalists" but in harassment creating a very unwelcome atmosphere for half of the population) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

New Slate piece

The latest article from David Auerbach of Slate. A lot of good material in that article we can use.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

#Slate on serious overview of the GG moderate, including the self-policing towards harassment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Explanation of revert

Just to be clearer on this issue, I reverted this because we do not need to have such a heavy level of quoting in that footnote or prose. It is being used as a footnote to hold quoted information from the pages. Let's keep it short and to the point.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: Please do not expand all those footnotes into prose explanations of the publications' statements. Just leave them as bare quotations. And that one in The Verge is worded oddly.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed maybe, but I think it's still worth clarifying what site The Washington Post is talking about. What's wrong with The Verge's wording? I couldn't find a very good place for it, but the spot I chose seemed good since The Verge used the phrase "seems so far" which implies that the legitimacy of the claims are an uncertainty.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind, somehow I missed "Debate over legitimacy of ethics concerns".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe not because that section is more meta than it appears at first glance. I can't find where it fits in the article anywhere else but the footnote.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Intro

I hate to say it, but my word, that intro is a wordy embarrassment. I tried to break it up for whitespace, as well as clean up the flow a bit. It's also a very bad NPOV violation, which I tried to clean up slightly. In particular, I feel the following needs to be addressed:

Gamergate's supporters, as in the people claiming to be behind the Gamergate movement, feel that it is about ethics in journalism. Their *critics* feel that this is a smokescreen to cover various forms of bigotry. I feel this is an important distinction that is not being addressed with the current lede. In particular, mentioning supposed bigotry before the ethics concerns I feel colors the opening inappropriately.
The lede seems to cover most of the claims of harassment and bigotry, but is very lite on the claims of ethics violations. This is inappropriate. If the lede mentions one, it should give equal time to the other, as it is apparent that both are equally important to the people following this controversy.
There are a significant number of Weasel Words ("reportedly," for example, in the most recent edit) in the article, in particular when dancing around some of the sources. I do not mean to call anyone out over this, as I am absolutely certain I left one or two in there on accident.
In addition, several instances of anonymous harassment are being attributed to "Gamers" or "Gamergate supporters" when there is no actual evidence of this. (In fact, there is more evidence that some of these events are acts of trolls or agent provocateurs.) I feel it is enough to mention that the harassment and death threats occurred -- they're bad enough -- without jumping to unfounded conclusions that cloud the issue.

This is a particularly touchy subject that seems to have inflamed both sides quite a bit. I hope we can all continue to keep a clear head and remain neutral. KiTA (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Per Bold, revert, discuss, I have reverted your edits until we reach consensus. The pre-existing lede is the result of long hours of debate, discussion and compromise. Please do not edit war over them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We do not introduce a controversial thing with what its supporters want us to perceive it as. We introduce that controversial thing as reliable sources are describing it. And it is trivial to demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources discuss the issue from the perspective of misogynistic harassment. The claims of "ethics violations" have all been debunked and rejected by reliable sources and are not deserving of "equal time."

NPOV does not mean "equal time" to all claims — it means that we place due weight on competing claims in accordance with their prevalence in reliable sources. It is trivial to demonstrate that the claims of "ethics violations" are not given much, if any, credence in mainstream reliable sources covering the issue. Therefore, neither will Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

IF we are going to talk about reliable sources then we need to purge any and all sources that are connected to journalists or publications covered by these claims of ethics violations -- Kotaku, for example, as well as any journalist involved in the GameJournosPros list. Simply put, these are tainted sources and cannot be trusted. I would go so far as to suggest that articles using these articles as sources should also be considered tainted, such as the Washington Post articles. This is a debate on apparent malpractice by journalists, and we are using these same journalists' works to defend themselves. That's not appropriate. KiTA (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. That's not how it works. One doesn't get to claim that everyone is biased except for those who are supporting them. Wikipedia is based on what is published in reliable sources, and that includes reliable sources that Gamergaters don't like. You are basically arguing that every major media outlet on the planet is biased against you, which is a conspiracy theory of the grandest scale. Do you realize how silly your argument sounds to anyone outside the bubble? "The Washington Post, Kotaku, BBC, PBS NewsHour, Vox, The Irish Independent, New York magazine, Wil Wheaton, John Gruber, Felicia Day, that Popehat guy, Jeb Lund, Wondermark Comics and Film Critic Hulk... they're all part of a secret anti-gamer SJW cabal suppressing the truth!" NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

My, what a nicely constructed strawman. You should be proud! You do realize even the journalists on GJPros confirm the existence of the group and the veracity of the leaked emails, yes? KiTA (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You can't really call the sources that are part of the controversy reliable.--Sirtywell — Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you can. The fact that someone, somewhere has made an accusation about something does not render that something tainted or unreliable. Otherwise, it would be a very neat trick to get rid of literally any source you don't like — just make an accusation against them and presto, "they're part of the controversy, they're not reliable." Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines do not work that way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to get rid of the sources but you have got to absolutely make it clear that these journals are reacting to accusations directed at them or else this is a really worthless article.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, there are more than sufficient sources to attribute the threats and harassment to GamerGate supporters. "GamerGate has grown to include outright harassment of women like Quinn and Sarkeesian who work in or critique the industry"—PBS NewsHour. "Day's experience was simply the latest example of how the #GamerGaters harass and intimidate women even tangentially connected to the controversy"—Vox. "Whatever its original motivations, that — attempting to silence women through threats of violence, otherwise known as terrorism — is what GamerGate has become."—The Journal TImes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Addressing your points in the order they are presented:

We cover the harassment before the journalistic ethics material because of the relative prominence in the best sources. i.e. Harassment, misogyny etc. get overwhelmingly more of the coverage and analysis whereas the journalistic ethics stuff is largely dismissed (one or two exceptions, of course, or we wouldn't be mentioning it at all in the lede.)
No, see point 1 above. The extant and nature of coverage should match the best sources which emphatically do not treat these two matters equally.
Fine. I couldn't find any instances of reportedly in the currently article but if any should occur they should be rephrased.
If the best sources attribute in that fashion they we repeat that. Whether there is sufficient evidence for that attribution is not something Wikipedia permits you or I to judge.

CIreland (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Weasel words are considered fine for the into. There is some POV issues, also seeing it seems to have large changes on a daily basis you can't claim there is some consensus backing it. Halfhat (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There was a longstanding consensus version, and I suppose we could revert to it if there's enough demand. Gamergate supporters were even less happy with it than they are with this one. Pick your poison. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the old one was a good bit out of date so it's not even much of an option. Halfhat (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I find it curious that an editor away from the project for 18 months just happens to reappear on a contentious article, new (and awfully biased) lead re-write in hand. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The "Hitler isn't treated so badly!" line of argument some of the new editors brought up yesterday was apparently doing the rounds on some of the nastier Subreddits, so that would explain a lot. Artw (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The reaction was more common than you think. I don't browse Reddit/4chan/what-have-you and the extremely abrasive lede immediately had me look up Ku Klux Klan and Nazi Party for referencing. Yes, I thought those articles were handled with much less bias.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Those articles are 1) not currently the center of a trollgate attack and 2 ) have had more than 2 months to develop and 3) have a wide range of heavily academic sources that 4) look at the subject from a distance. Until those four conditions apply here, you are unlikely to see anything other than a hot mess. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for rewrite and trimming

With an article like this, you'd expect the intro sentence to state what "Gamergate" is officially designated, followed by a linebreak and a paragraph stating its origins in no less than two or three sentences and "...it has received wide criticism from..." etc. The third and last paragraph should then state how, who, and where the subject has received support. The Sarkeesian/Quinn/Wu/whatever stuff does not need to be in the lede. They are easily represented by the statement "A number of people, primarily women, working in the gaming industry in various capacities were subjected to an intense campaign of harassment and violent threats..." The specifics of these threats and the victim's individual responses are not top priority for a brief summary. Quinn may have sparked the movement, surely making her an important factor, but according to the article contents along with the greater scheme of things, she is ultimately of no more significance than the other women claiming harassment. Likewise, Adam Baldwin isn't namedropped, and he "invented" Gamergate.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that these women have been harassed and fled their homes are a central discussion of the Gamergate controversy. Again, this article is not about GamerGate as a movement. It's about everything that has happened surrounding the hashtag.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh, yes it is about the movement, as well as the events that have arisen because of it. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that several women have been harassed is one of the central discussions; I fail to see how this article demonstrates that the women themselves are central, except for maybe Quinn, but only in that she was a motivator.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Quin was THE TARGET, not a motivator. Stop attempting to blame the victim. BLP applies to all comments on all pages. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article. (MOS:INTRO)
The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. (MOS:BEGIN)
The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs [more than 30,000 characters]. (WP:LEADLENGTH)

I'd appreciate if you didn't accuse me of victim blaming just because I've been led to believe that Quinn's direct associations has turned comparatively minuscule in hindsight, thanks. I've not seen anything which states or suggests that Quinn is or was the final boss of Gamergate. She was speculated to be a target of Gamergate, and is said to have instigated the movement, but there is nothing to her beyond that — save for some pre-existing online drama between her and other communities/organizations. Perhaps you could instead offer a suggestion on how the lede could be trimmed? What are the most important points of Gamergate summarized in fewer words? The lede's current character count is more than 40,000, some 10,000 more than recommended by MOS.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Quin "was speculated to be a target of Gamergate"? ?????? ???????? she " instigated the movement"? ????? ???????? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

She forced them to spend the last few days trawling through her source code looking for "clues", you know. Artw (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd also appreciate a less condescending attitude. Maybe "speculate" is not as good a descriptor as Gamergate advocates being "ascribed blame" for her harassment. And yes, she instigated, caused, sparked, incited, catalyzed, whatever. Plenty of sources stating such on the article. Obviously I did not mean she had begun or started it voluntarily. Any more thoughts?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: Quite plainly, NO, QUINN DID NOTHING. A jilted boyfriend and internet trolls DID things. That has been clear from the very start and is covered in EVERY reliable source. Her role, at best, has been to be the target. You have received the notice about the discretionary sanctions that apply to this article. Any more tendentious editing that suggests Quinn is responsible in any way will be reported as a trigger for your topic ban. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I spent a good ten minutes wondering what it was I said exactly to justify such a threat and I think I see the technicality in question. OK. I get it now. That doesn't mean, if only for the sake of brevity, that the extent of her and others' harassment needs to all be recapitulated in the lede. Why does the reader need to be informed of the victim's immediate responses in the lede? Is it that central to discussion?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:LEAD the lead summarizes the main points of the subject. the main points of the subject as covered by all of the reliable sources are the harassment against Quinn Sarkeesian and Wu- hence the threats against them will be the major portion of the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There have been threats against pro GamerGate people too. This article seems extremely biased for one side

One writer was sent a syringe with an unknown substance for instance, as reported in TechCrunch and other outlets.(see http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/) This article seems extremely biased toward one side.Sy9045 (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

An event from a month ago that is not mentioned in any other reliable sources is not worthy to be mentioned here. And this claim of "bias" is because no undue weight is to be given to a minority and fringe viewpoint.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? You've shown blatant biases throughout this article. It's quite sickening. Here's another "reliable" source which comes straight from Kotaku that mentions the syringe incident: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/10/another-woman-in-gaming-flees-home-following-death-threats/. Milo Yiannopoulos's Wikipedia page also includes the syringe incident so I don't know why it's not allowed to be included here. The more I edit Wikipedia, the more I see how the political biases from editors like you are destroying Wikipedia's credibility.Sy9045 (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

we can't do much because right now ryulong "owns" the article, and admins do nothing. Javier2005 (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The syringe allegedly sent to Yiannopoulos is a footnote in most of these rather than a focus.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

So it's a "footnote" because it doesn't fit the narrative that pro GamerGate people are full of misoygonistic and violent "nerds" and anti GamerGate people are the helpless victims who can't do anything wrong, correct? Is this the narrative you're going for?Sy9045 (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No. It's a footnote because there's no article by any major news agency that describes any of the claims made by Yiannopoulos on this one event that happened a month ago, not to mention we do not really discuss Yiannopoulos or his partcipation in GamerGate on the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC).

You cannot be serious. Up above, you say "Kotaku" is a "reliable" source and cite it repeatedly. Now when I show you a Kotaku source that cites the syringe incident which runs contrary to this little narrative you're pushing, you now claim the source is unreliable. The mental gymnastics required to keep up with you would qualify me for the 2016 Summer Olympics.Sy9045 (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Kotaku spends three sentences in its massive piece on Brianna Wu fleeing from her home to say "Milo Yiannopolous tweeted that someone sent him a syringe". This is the issue with WP:UNDUE. Plus, most people have been claiming that Kotaku isn't a reliable source because they are the focus of GamerGate's ire. They can't say that there was no journalistic ethical misconduct on behalf of Nathan Grayson and Zoe Quinn, but they can say that Milo Yiannopolous was threatened (when it's been documented he and his website have made things up in the past). Which is it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

But you say so yourself that Kotaku cites pro GamerGaters as being misogynistic and so we must include that message in the article. Why are you now backtracking when Kotaku cites something that runs contrary to your beliefs? Shouldn't you be objective? Multiple sources from TechCrunch to Kotaku have cited the syringe incident. Milo's Wikipedia page includes the syringe incident. I don't know anything about Milo's 'fake' past, which seems quite conspiratorial already, but why are you the one to imply Milo's deceptions when you offer zero proof? What if someone claimed the death threats made against female writers were faked and so we must omit that information from the article? How would that make you feel? What is your motive in erasing the syringe incident from "your" article?Sy9045 (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The BBC, CNN, Washngton Post, New York Times, New Yorker, New York magazine, etc. also say that there's misogyny in Gamergate. Now only TechCrunch and Kotaku (Australia) have added minimal corrections to their pieces that report Milo's syringe. A syringe that he said he ultimately threw out rather than give to the police. It's a minimal footnote that you want to give undue weight by mentioning it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

What Wikipedia guideline are you following exactly? Even RealClearPolitics, which is cited by BBC, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times frequently, mentions the syringe incident (see http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/10/09/the_gender_games_sex_lies_and_videogames_124244.html). I've checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, and it seems to me like you are making up your own arbitrary rules on what constitutes a "reliable" source instead of relying on Wikipedia's standards. Shouldn't we rely on Wikipedia's guidelines and not yours?Sy9045 (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying that these are not reliable sources. The TechCrunch piece is already in the article. I'm not personally sure if RealClearPolitics meets WP:RS. What I am saying is that the minimal mentions of the syringe in these now three sources you've pointed out to me are single and very small aspects of the whole of the news articles. Listing it on Wikipedia would violate WP:UNDUE, which I have quoted multiple times.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Significant coverage in multiple sources is only a requirement for creating articles, not including information at all. One would be enough for a small, discreet mention; I can't see how three wouldn't just because most of the harassment covered by reliable sources has been in the opposite direction. This isn't painting the pro-Gamergate people as good or anything, only pointing out that they haven't been the aggressors 100% of the time. Tezero (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree.Sy9045 (talk) 06:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Please, oh please, read Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight again. As it stands, there is **no** citation of the syringe incident when Wikipedia's guidelines clearly state that there should be at least be some mention of it (since the incident has been cited in a handful of reliable sources already). Specifically, see this guideline: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." There is no "weight" for the syringe incident as it stands in the article, when there should at least be "some" weight according to Wikipedia's policies.Sy9045 (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

A footnote/correction/update in two pieces and a single sentence in another of questionable reliability to support inclusion of one fact to go "look at what anti-Gamergate did" is WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You are making up your own rules arbitrarily by defining what's "questionable reliability" instead of sticking to Wikipedia's guidelines, as I've cited above. You claim that there is too little "weight" and decide that the article should include no weight, when Wikipedia's guidelines clearly mention otherwise. You have shown a clear bias and I think you should not be allowed to edit this article anymore.Sy9045 (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I am calmly explaining to you that WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, not rules I've made up, do not allow the mention of this extremely minimal part of GamerGate because no one else is talking about it and making a big deal out of it. Only three websites that could be considered reliable sources are reporting on this thing that takes up one or two sentences in the whole of their coverage, and therefore saying it happened on this page is giving undue weight to a non-issue. And I am simply not personally sure if RealClearPolitics is normally or could be used as a reliable source in this instance.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

When a handful of reliable sources report on the incident, there must be some mention of it. You are defining what's "undue" and "fringe" based on your own definitions. Multiple reliable sources reporting on the incident does not constitute "fringe". Did you read Wikipedia's guidelines on what constitutes fringe? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories - see: "Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources") There are multiple independent reliable sources that mention the incident. It's a shame that we're even having this argument.Sy9045 (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources in question do not spend any considerable time discussing this aspect, unlike the other sources that focus almost entirely on the other claims that this article covers. Saying that this mattersin the long run, when even the subject of the attack does not, would be giving this one instance of anything undue weight. That is my answer for you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've got to say, this has gotten to be wholly ridiculous. Ryulong is now using the fact that the majority of press has a negative opinion of Gamergate to block inclusion of any piece of information that does not fit an "anti-Gamergate" narrative, in this case the threats against Milo Yiannopoulos, cited by Kotaku, among others, a source that's being used as a cite for other entries in this article. I fail to see how mention of the incident constitutes WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUEWEIGHT (mere mention of this is "undue weight"?). At this point, I think there's a certain degree of gaming the system with arguments as to what constitutes a "reliable source", especially with regard to having a low bar for acceptance for items Ryolong and similarly-leaning editors want included, and a wholly different standard for items these people want blocked. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You're all going to have to lay off the ownership claims in regard to Ryulong. As it happens, they're responding here, and they've been pretty active. But there are many, many editors at work here, in addition to admins overlooking what's happening here--in case you hadn't noticed the Discretionary Sanctions warnings. Now, Sy9045 and Javier2005, you are going to have to adopt a much less personal tone, and you're going to have to stop doing this whole "your" article thing, or you risk being blocked for contributing to an unworkable atmosphere. Ryulong, I believe I don't have to tell you that I think you also, on occasion, need to take it down a notch, though I commend you on keeping your cool so far. Drmies (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You can use "he" for me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Please, please, please have editors stick to Wikipedia's guidelines and not make up their own. This is all I'm asking. The biases are rampant and information is selectively omitted or included, which I feel is ruining Wikipedia's credibility.Sy9045 (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

How the policies and guidelines apply is, in the first instance, to be discussed here--if there's doubt about them. But even if you feel that way, you'll have to address them in a non-accusatory way. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if it comes out that way. I feel that Ryulong should not be allowed to edit this article anymore because he is ignoring Wikipedia's guidelines and making up his own rules. There is a clear bias. Please read my discussion with him above.Sy9045 (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

uhhhh, have you actually read the rules WP:BALASPS you claim Ryulong is violating? because, you know, they are attempting to apply them, and you are attempting to un-apply them. and people who continually tendentiously edit against what the policies actually say are subject to discretionary sanctions banning them from the gamergate topic area. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

ummmm, have you actually read my lengthy debate with Ryulong above about undue weight and how I repeatedly cited Wikipedia's policies, or did you just completely dismiss/ignore our discussion?Sy9045 (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

yes, i see how you keep citing them and claiming that a tiny fraction of the non mainstream sources making passing mentions of an event demonstrate a requirement that and event is mentioned in our article -which is either a signal that you didnt actually read the policies or an indication that you have a complete misunderstanding of their content . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that there's any Wikipedia policy that dictates that any information is required to be present anywhere - I suppose all of our core policies could be satisfied vacuously - but I also don't see a good reason not to include this information. Sure, it complicates the narrative that Gamergate is universally the aggressive party, but that's the sender's fault for doing so (assuming this is the only such incident, a possibility I find astronomically unlikely), not ours for covering it. Life is complicated. Tezero (talk) 07:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There's actually plenty of harassment of Gamergate supporters recorded in RSs, which I've collected on this Talk page, but for some reason that's not included the article. There are plenty of topics I've collated on the Talk page that aren't included in the article. I'm not touching it. I don't want to have to fight people, and I worry any changes I make will just be used an excuse to get me banned, so somebody else will have to do it. If Wikipedia actually wants this article to be up to scratch, they'd do well to ban all current and past editors from this article and let others take over, because clearly the people now contributing to it are doing a very poor job. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You say all this but do not give the evidence to back it up. Right now in this thread repost all of the sources you've posted to this talk page explaining that pro-Gamergate supporters have faced harassment from anti-Gamergate supporters because I only frankly found one version that is came from a neutral party and not some heavily biased pro-Gamergate claptrap as is wont by you all and incorporated it into the article already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I have this same fear about this article. I worry that, even with justified sourcing and a neutral tone, any editing that adds something to the GamerGate narrative or even anything that detracts from the anti-GG narrative will be reverted and may potentially result in punitive action. Some have been extremely patient with the new editors who haven't had a lot of experience - the rules are formal and they aren't learned instantly. I trust it when those people say a source might be fringe or inadequate, and I'm getting pretty good at recognizing the process thanks to them. But regardless, I have been consistently seeing how having a certain amount of veteran weight can allow one editor to plant themselves down and refuse to budge, cooperate, or even take a respectful tone towards other editors. YellowSandals (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Tossing thinly veiled insults is not allowed. In addition, this is the incorrect forum for discussing behavior issues. You will need to take those to a proper forum such as WP:AN / WP:ANI or better yet, politely discuss your concerns on the the users talk page (supplying evidence is a necessary prerequisite if you choose to go to WP:AN.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems the consensus says "yes" to include; I also believe Ryulong's arguments against it are weak. I think much the reason why information like this is treated as "fringe" is because every time a new piece turns up, it is discredited for the reason that it doesn't fit with the rest of the article's contents. Well, we have to start somewhere, don't we? At the very minimum, is there really a problem with including such reports in a footnote?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Where the hell are you seeing anything that approaches "consensus"????? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You can call me out if my numbers are wrong but I count 4:2 for inclusion (including me) and 3 implicitly for including from Javier2005, Willhesucceed, and Yellowsandals. It is so minor to simply state something to the effect of "Journalist and Gamergate supporter Milo Yanna-something reported that he had received a mail package containing a syringe filled with an unknown substance." No opinions, no subjectivity, doesn't contradict anything in the article, and is not contentious or libelous in the slightest to warrant a large number of RSes. This talk page is filled with rationales such as "this article seems impartial because there are no reliable sources discussing Gamergate in a sympathetic/favorable light" quickly followed by "we can't have these sympathetic/favorable statements from reliable sources because they'll seem out of place".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's been in the article for 12 hours so stop arguing over it FFS. I still don't think it belongs because the sourcing is shit but whatever.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, but I just wanted to see if anyone would have a problem if I tried integrating it in the article. Thanks for replying.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

In the near future, there might be reason to cover harassment directed at people using the gamergate hashtag. If Anonymous does dive in and the media begin to cover it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

semantic issue: controversy or movement

The introduction says gamergate is a "controversy", but in the body there are references to "#GamerGate movement" and even "GamerGater". I honestly don't know which it is. It's a nebulous enough conversation that it is already hard to define the sides, but I honestly can't even tell if a "GamerGater" is someone who objects to women commenting on games, or someone who objects to misogynistic expression.

Galexander (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The nebulous nature of the whole thing makes it hard for media to describe and not something we can really fix here. Strongjam (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a Gamergate movement and a controversy around that movement. The movement itself is not notable by itself, but the controversy it created is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that it's not really stated which side is the gg side and which is the anti. It may be worth adding "purported (by Gamergate supporters)" or similar to define it.TuxedoMonkey (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we could call the article "Gamergate (video gaming)" (which aligns with video game terminology like Boss (video gaming)) and thus say in the lead that "GG is the name of both a movement and the controversy surrounding the movement that..." --MASEM (t) 20:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Or we can argue that the ant isn't the primary use anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

My past observations on naming schemes is that something like a standardized scientific term is always going to win out over a pop culture thing, regardless of predominace of sources. (see, for example that Avatar the film is the one disambiguated over as aspect of a religious faith.) But using (video gaming) would allow us to be clear the article is about the interconnected movement and controversy in the lead. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The only reason this article is ostensibly about the controversy and not the movement is because very little information sourced from the movement's advocates has yet to be published anywhere, or if it has, was not deemed verifiable by some editors. I have no doubt that this will change soon once information is allowed to disseminate while advocates are given the chance to defend the movement in the mainstream media, and that is one place where we will be able to extrapolate something more concrete.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I see it as a hashtag with a movement supporting it and a controversy around it. The movement itself is much harder to cover than the sources with RS Halfhat (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

whatever you may see, the reliable sources dont. they see harassment and a bunch of incoherent and false claims surrounding it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The current article title is succinct and descriptive of the whats & the whys of "Gamergate". This article is about the controversy over legions of anonymous gamers harassing a variety of people, beginning with Zoe Quinn and continuing on with mostly female journalists who criticized the anonymous acts. "Gamergate" is not primarily about ethics in gamer journalism; its secondary nature does not justify a move away from the present title. Tarc (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Mostly female journalists? Only one i can think of is leigh alexander. I thought most of the journalists were male? Retartist (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Didn't Jenn Frank quit due to the backlash of whatever she did that I can't remember?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

iirc Mattie Brice stepped back for a while but changed her mind when she realized quitting didn't stop the abuse. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Jenn Frank wrote an article September 1 about how gg is all about misogyny, wrote an article September 11 announcing retirement, then wrote another (unrelated) article on the 19th. I think she's stayed retired after that.TuxedoMonkey (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Incredible bias

WP:DROPTHESTICK; Discuss this is the many other sections above. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As someone who had hoped to learn more about the roots of the "Gamergate controversy", I came to this article, as Wikipedia is usually a great source for unbiased information, and is kept up pretty well. With that being said, I have never been more ashamed as a defender of Wikipedia after reading this article... the bias is dripping through in almost every paragraph, in everything from the broad generalizations of gamer culture to the description of the term "social justice warriors" as "a derogatory term for people in the video-game industry who use the medium to talk about political issues". It is clear even to me that large passages of this were written by people with very little knowledge of "gamer culture" and additionally, people with a clear agenda. I don't edit articles often, so as someone with an outside perspective, I'd say this needs almost a total re-write. But that's just my two cents. Beachdude42 01:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachdude42 (talk • contribs)

As someone who has edited Wikipedia, like yourself, you should be fully aware that Wikipedia is only written based on what can be verified in reliable sources, and at the current point of history, when this is a subject that is barely 2 months old, this is how the world at large (BBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Verge, etc.) all view the goings on of Gamergate. It is not the fault of Wikipedia that a leaderless movement whose only standard for membership is typing "#gamergate" in a tweet or other social media post is not best represented in the press, when they only have the actions of a highly vocal minority, of at least what is now being recognized as trolls, existing within the group to further goals and agendas. Wikipedia editors cannot write any articles from personal experience, which is why it reads like someone who is completely separated from gamer culture has written it. That is at its best neutrality. Someone with no vested or personal interest in a topic writing about it. You are free to edit the article to address concerns, but be aware that the artcle is currently under general sanctions to deal with large torrents of users who are only here to push an agenda or point of view on the page to detract from people doing their best to adhere to the neutral point of view policy, particularly its rules on not giving undue weight to minority view points that are not addressed in reliable sources or regarded by the public at large as correct.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand that, but I feel there are enough common goals shared among MOST members of the Gamergate "movement" that the movement itself deserves larger weight in the article than it currently has compared to the backlash against it. Beachdude42 02:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a different reliably-sourced definition of "social justice warrior" that you'd like to propose? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the bit that mentions the term "Social Justice Warrior" isn't great: it's one of many sections of the article that have suffered from a kind of 'quote creep,' where tendentious opposition to anything that is seen as in some way 'anti-gamergate' eventually results in editors using direct quotes from single sources rather than simply using the sources to write cohesive prose. -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Its a sad day when Encyclopedia Dramatica, not even Uncyclopedia, but ED, has a less biased, more accurate depiction of the memeings. --The Defender of Light Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing >Inventory< 02:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, that article actually DOES give a better summary than this article does. Sad. Beachdude42 02:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachdude42 (talk • contribs)

These aren't "memeings," these are actual serious events which impact real people's lives. That we treat these issues as such and not as targets for cheap lulz is to Wikipedia's credit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

vague statements, not found in source

games centering on social issues grew in popularity, and some of these were seen by elements of the hardcore gaming community as not fitting their definition of games
Which elements of the hardcore gaming community, and who said it? The vox source statement about the gaming community was: "the community is already primed to think that any discussion of games in a sociopolitical context means that talk of banning them isn't far behind." Statement and source do not match.

The growth of the audience for video games and an increasing perception of their potential as an art form prompted gaming outlets to move towards cultural criticism of the games
Vox do not mention cultural criticism of the games. They do talk about cultural journalist, with the statement "if a cultural journalist writes about a game or movie or book, the implicit assumption is that this is worth you knowing about on some level". Statement and source do not match.

A large number of women whose primary gaming interests did not conform to those of the male-oriented gamer identity, and who began to question some of the assumptions and tropes that were historically used by game developers.
This is an implied historical perspective around gamer identity, but without source. Who said that, and where? The time article states that "Over the last few weeks, identity tensions have divided fans online in strange, ugly episodes rooted in how writers discuss games and who is allowed to participate." That is the historical perspective about the last weeks. Statement and source do not match.

In light of the growing female audience for games, and growing female representation in the gaming industry, outlets became increasingly interested in detailing issues of gender representation in video games
As a reader, I wonder whom those outlets are or who's analysis it is. Neither vox, latimes or times can tell me when this "increasingly interested" started, or if it stated.

In all, sourceless statement that should be removed or have sources to support them. Instead they were reintroduced, and thus posted here for further discussion. Unsourced statements are normally a non-issue for articles with this many editors, but I guess the tone here should have scared me away from looking at it. Belorn (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

As a comment, most of these are sourcable points from earlier sources in the GG commentary. They are not fully contentious (if you follow video games, these are obvious trends), but we do need better sourcing for them if they aren't in the sources attached, but I do believe all those sources exist. --MASEM (t) 04:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If they "obviously" exist, someone should ad it. The article is long enough that we don't need to have additional sourceless statements that are broad and vague. I removed the content for this very purpose and got reverted. Wikipedia:Verifiability puts the burden to demonstrate verifiability with the editor who adds or restores material. As such, please demonstrate verifiability. Belorn (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The contested material Belorn has been removing is indeed in the sources that he keeps removing along with the text in question. Just because it is not spelled out identically as we do on the article does not mean that the material is not supported.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

please demonstrate verifiability. Pull quote or give line number. Just because you believe they are "in there" doesn't make it so. Belorn (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying you haven't actually looked at the sources? Artw (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No, how can I pull quotation from the articles without looking at them?Belorn (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong claimed they were supported in the last paragraph of vox and times, so I will (given copyright allows it) pull them here for illustration:

So, in essence, #GamerGate has "won," superficially, but it can never really win. The movement is probably too big now to accomplish all of its goals, much less concretely articulate them. - Vox

As video games unshackle from old constraints, traditional fans double down on keeping the treehouse sacrosanct. The tension between “games as product” and “games as culture” is visible within these online controversies as everyone invested in the industry watches to see which will “win”. Someone should tell the internet conspiracy theorists they can relax — we’ll absolutely, definitely have both. - time.com

Those do not support any of the 4 cited statements above. I don't know why you think it does, and start question good-faith here.Belorn (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong was pointing you at the end of the paragraph where the citations were sitting, not the last paragraph of those articles. Artw (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Artw is right. I don't know how "In Vox and Time at the end of the entire paragraph" means "its in the last paragraph at Vox and Time". This is ridiculous Belorn. Read the whole pieces instead of just going "give me proof" because editors before you have used those sources as the proof necessary.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks artw. I was asking Ryulong where in the article the statements were directly supported, and the reply was "In Vox and Time at the end of the entire paragraph". I see now that the reply was not actually an answer to the question, which is why the confusion happened. I am still waiting to hear where in the article (line, quote or paragraph) that directly support each of the above 4 statements. If the answer is "the whole articles", then please explain how both articles directly support each of the 4 statements. If Ryulong has read the articles he want to use, he should be able to explain how they directly support the statements. Belorn (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually read the articles, beyond the last paragraphs, and found them lacking in that regard? Artw (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise I would not have stated that none of the 4 statements above can be found supported in either of the articles. Since there is now 2 editors stating that the articles strongly support the 4 statements, could either of you (or anyone else) please explain how the articles directly support the statements. Belorn (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a relevant question, time wasting questions and excessive nitpicking being a bit of a recurring theme here.

Here's some quotes form the "can games be art" section of the

And, really, a big part of this debate is about how games are allowed to be art. The indie game scene stretches the definition of games in an industry dominated by massive action blockbusters. Depression Quest and Gone Home keep coming up in this debate because both are, for the most part, devoid of traditional gameplay mechanics. They're less about getting you through a gameplay narrative and more about making you have a particular experience. They're about personal, artistic expression more than a carefully controlled story that apes big-budget movies.

"In the past, there was this fictional conception that a reviewer could apply an ‘objective' score to a video game, untainted by any personal bias. Given that games are highly subjective, experiential things, and not mobile phones, this idea is a bit silly to begin with," Alexander said. "But then you add into the mix that the historical model of games coverage involved bargains struck between marketing departments at big games companies and the advertising departments of niche games magazines, and it's stunning that the biggest ‘ethical concerns' our audience has ever raised come from an environment where people now do personal, creative writing about independent games."

The film industry is a good comparison point here. That's a world where there are both huge blockbusters and smaller, more intimate films that take chances with the form. Video games are getting there, too. This is, ultimately, just a part of that evolution. And as long as that evolution continues, there will be this sort of fractious debate. Because what #GamerGate is all about isn't who is or isn't a gamer, or what role the press should play. It's about what games should be and who they should be for. And that's worth a real discussion, not just a hashtag.

Possibly you skimmed over that? Artw (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

4 statements, let see if that quote directly support each of them.

'"games centering on social issues grew in popularity" is supported by "Depression Quest and Gone Home keep coming up in this debate because both are, for the most part, devoid of traditional gameplay mechanics. "?
'"The growth of the audience prompted gaming outlets to move towards cultural criticism" is supported by "In the past, there was this fictional conception that a reviewer could apply an ‘objective' score to a video game, untainted by any personal bias. "?
male-oriented gamer identity. Honestly, no idea what that is supposed to be supported by. A hint please?
outlets became increasingly interested in detailing issues of gender representation in video games. Again, no clue how that is directly supported by any of that. Some implied statement by related aspect of movies? Belorn (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Imagine my suprise that you turn out to be a timewaster with reading comprehension issues. Go do your own homework. Artw (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. If your inability to demonstrate how the sources support the claims is causing you to make derogatory comments about other editors, I suggest trying harder. Belorn (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have asked WP:ORN for help in reading the sources and see if a person outside this discussion can see the statements as directly supported by the two cited articles. If the editors who want to include the statements refuses to explain in what way the cited articles directly support the statements, maybe someone at the noticeboard will. Belorn (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Your challenges have been challenged. What is your real goal here?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

My goal is to have statements which is supported by sources. For example, the article claim that games centering on social issues has grew in popularity, and I would like to know who claims it and what data they are using to support it. As a reader, that would interest me, as gaming trends is interesting. I would also like to know in what way gaming outlets has moved towards cultural criticism. Gaming outlets was talking about cultural criticism like game violence back in the mid 1990, and if there has been a recent change towards more focused efforts, then I would like to know whom claims it and what data they are using to support it. Lastly, Wikipedia makes the claim that gamer identity is male-oriented. I would like to know what sources is used to support it. It is a bit disturbing that wanting to know who makes what claim (ie, verifiability) is seem as time wasting for wikipedia editors. What is your real goal here Ryulong by refusing to explain in what way the cited articles directly support the statements?Belorn (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Artw has shown you what was said. The Devil's Advocate challenged your challenging of the text as well. And it doesn't matter if you dislike the subject. The content is found in the sources. It's not my job to point that out to you because you didn't feel like reading it beyond trying to find anything that closely resembled what had been written instead of a completely different set of text with the same concept.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If you do not feel like reading the article so can figure it out for yourself, I can not make you. The content is not found in the sources. The concept from the 4 statement is not there, nor has you tried to show it. Artw pulled a few quotes, which implied vaguely about the subject of 2 statements and had nothing about the remaining 2. Belorn (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Except I'm not the one who added it. Multiple editors reverted you as they did not disagree with your assertion that the content was not sourced, and it wasn't just me. The content is variously sourced throughout the page and those general sources discuss the aspects, just not in the way you think is absent. And if you really have issues, maybe you should raise them up with The Devil's Advocate who was the original author of the section.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material~as per WP:V.Belorn (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that you're looking for pull quotes, but these statements are general summaries of the articles.

Statements 1 and 2 are related. Vox compares the games industry with the film industry: in the evolving games industry, smaller games developers can take chances on games like Gone Home and Depression Quest, games that both emphasize social issues (for example, “the experience of having depression”) and avoid “traditional gameplay mechanics”, to the point where they may be considered “Walking Novels” or “Interactive Novels” but which Vox feels are nevertheless still considered games. But there is pushback “that games like Depression Quest and Gone Home are called 'games' in the first place”. Vox states that games can be a “personal, artistic expression” which requires subjective review as one does with art.

Statements 3 and 4 are related. Time looks at the games industry historically, discussing how the industry was into “sell[ing] high-end hardware to young men” and their “young male demographic”, but that better and easier tools led to a “rapidly maturing, surprisingly diverse medium”, which changed “the way games journalists parse all this for their readers”, including “[p]rominent feminist critique”. On these points, the Vox article is more about the current state of the industry, that game media are “covering issues of female representation in games”, calling out specific criticisms such as “harmful tropes”, and “engag[ing] with LGBT issues”.

I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It does, thanks. Vox brings two examples of game to talk about such games. To go from there and state that "social issues grew in popularity" seems to me a bit of a stretch since two data points do not make a trend (statistically speaking).

The time quote is "The games that have historically enjoyed the biggest budgets and the highest returns are Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, Halo and their ilk. Aimed largely at that young male demographic", which talk about those specific games targeted demographic. From there we extrapolate that the whole gamer-identity is male. It is a bit of a stretch, especially given that the Forbes articles from kain described "white, male nerds with deep-seeded fears of both reality and women" as a negative gamer stereotype which only describe a small minority of those who self-identify as gamer. I would add that as a counter weight if I thought there was a chance that it would ever get pass the gatekeepers. Belorn (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right that Vox specifically calls out only Depression Quest and Gone Home, but that source also includes a screenshot of Fez and refers to an "indie game scene" focusing on more personal games. Time also lists a number of games with "rich, touchable experiences" and "oddly intimate interactions" and states that "new digital business models help game companies endure". To me, that indicates a trend of more games with sustainable business models. Personally, I would have preferred if the articles had included concise pullout quotes—especially because they're important points—but I suppose that's why I write for Wikipedia instead of Time. And I wouldn't say that our use of "male-oriented gamer identity" implies that men are the only gaming demographic—"growing female audience" suggests that women were there all along?, as we know—but men were the money demographic. Which is changing, so games journalism must "parse" their articles for the more "diverse" demographics. Woodroar (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Anti-feminism and right wing opportunists

I've written a paragraph based on this piece by Zaid Jilani for Salon here. Tweaks and comments welcome.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's quite perplexing that you would cite something from one single opinion piece when you insisted above that something cited needs multiple sources. So opinion pieces are now fair game? Can we cite opinion pieces from those who aren't so anti GamerGate? I have a feeling that those opinion pieces don't qualify, am I right?Sy9045 (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a whole article on a spcific subject and not three sentences from three separate articles about other things. Your criticism is noted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Christina Sommers gave an opinion piece on MSNBC yesterday on Ronan Farrow's show that explained pro GamerGate's side. Mediaite reported on it under the title "#GamerGate Defender to MSNBC: ‘Not Anti-Women,’ Just ‘Pro-Transparency’". Can we cite that too or what? Where are you exactly drawing the line here?Sy9045 (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It reads to me that your summary of the Mordor thing (copies were given out, praise was required) differs a little from the article's description (praisers were given copies), which differs a bit from the Forbes piece cited in the article (a contract was offered to receive a copy in exchange for various conditions, including praise, and oversights). Maybe make it very broad, such as "involving the restriction of review copies to positive reviewers" or else cite a source that treats the issue at greater length than a couple of lines, such as the Forbes one. TuxedoMonkey (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the summarization I made was incorrect. I will look at the Forbes article and incorporate the new information within it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What counts as a reliable source and what isn't?

Apparently only sources that describe GamerGate as misogynistic counts is "reputable" all of a sudden. (Redacted)Kotaku becomes "unreliable" when it describes a syringe being sent to a pro GamerGate writer. Slate counts as reputable but Reason doesn't. Salon counts as reputable but Breitbart doesn't. New York Mag counts as reliable but TechCrunch doesn't. Why is this? What determines what is reliable and what isn't? Only sources that describe GamerGate as misogynistic? Sy9045 (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Short answer is that WP:RS and WP:RSN decide. If there's contention about a specific source, it should be brought to WP:RSN, but check the archives using the search feature for past discussions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Past discussions are here and here. Seems to be questions about editorial oversight. The about page doesn't give much info on that front. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. But you've been reading Reddit wrong. I have not said that Kotaku became unreliable when it covered Milo's syringe. I said that the coverage in the Kotaku article does not reflect proper due weight for being something of note to mention on this article because it's a one sentence correction rather than any sort of real focus. (Redacted)—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop questioning my motives and stop insulting me. I haven't been reading "Reddit" to form my opinions. There is no objectivity here whatsoever. Slate and Salon are quoted profusely while other articles that talk about journalistic standards in game reviews are stifled. Multiple sources that report on the syringe incident is not sufficient while sourcing content from one single opinion piece is justified apparently. Even Wikipedia's very own Jimmy Wales says it's "obvious" there was collusion involved in game reviews. This page has been a huge embarrassment to the Wikipedia community. No attempts at objectivity whatsoever.Sy9045 (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Slate and Salon are non-gaming media looking from the outside in so out of everyone they would be most objective in examining the controversy. And there are not "multiple sources" reporting on the syringe incident. Three different publications list single sentence discussions of the syringe as having existed, and two of those sources are simply updates to already published pieces. In my opinion, such a minor level of discussion on what would by all means be a big thing, seems to say that it's an unimportant footnote in the greater subject that is what this article is about.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

And you think TechCrunch, Breitbart, and Reason are devoted gaming media and aren't "looking from the outside in"? Really? The arbitrary definitions for what count as "reliable" and what doesn't is perplexing to say the least. You cite opinion pieces from one single article, but turn around and insist that multiple sources citing something is irrelevant because lengthy essays aren't being written about it. I say there is more of a political agenda going on here and objectivity has taken a back seat. I can't believe Wikipedia has devolved into this.Sy9045 (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Techcrunch has weak editorial control. Brietbart is a 'news' site best known for publishing outright lies to discredit political enemies. Reason is, iirc, mainly used for opinion sources, but I'm not sure what source you're talking about so I couldn't tell you for sure what the issue is there. But basically, if most sources that give pro-gamergate perspectives are not considered reliable, it's not necessarily a sign that editors are not evaluating sources fairly. Couldn't it also be a sign that reliable sources are not saying the kinds of things that gamergate would like this article to say? -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Where is your proof that TechCrunch has weaker editorial control than Slate or Salon? Where is your proof that Breitbart "lies" and Salon and Slate don't? The burden of proof is on you. Why are Reason opinion pieces not qualified but opinion pieces from Slate or Salon fine? What concrete rules should we use to determine what's "reliable" and what isn't? Is it just based on what one feels like?Sy9045 (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, I am not saying that these websites are not reliable sources. Except Breitbart. Breitbart is not a reliable source. What I am saying is that for the level of coverage dedicated to the syringe in Kotaku, TechCrunch, and Reason, it is not a significant event to cover.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I really do not understand. Why is Slate and Salon "reliable" but Breitbart not? What rules or parameters are you using to determine that?Sy9045 (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You can see why Breitbart is not a reliable source by looking at the article on them here. They have outright lied about what they've written and manipulated the evidence to suit their agenda.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you just straight up cite a Wikipedia page to justify them not being reliable? There are a total of 6 controversies on that page. If you look at the New York Times page, there are 7. As far as I know 7 is greater than 6. Should we remove all sources from the New York Times now? Do you see how ridiculous that would be? Anyway, citing Wikipedia is the clumsiest and weakest proof I've ever seen. Please show me concrete scientific proof that Breitbart is not as reliable as any of the other sources that are being cited as "reliable". You made the claim, now prove it. I'll wait.Sy9045 (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not just Ryulong's claim or mine. That's the firm and established consensus. If you'd like to contest it the next step is to ask at WP:RSN. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is just untrue. I checked the archives and there are differing opinions on it, including differing opinions on the New York Times, MSNBC, and Slate. I would love for you to show me where the "consensus" was established on Breitbart because I couldn't find it.Sy9045 (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You can search the archives if you like, you'll see a large number of editors saying the same thing. WP:RSN. That's your next step if you want to appeal this. We don't re-argue issues like this every time a new editor brings them up: go ask for outside comments at the appropriate noticeboard. -- TaraInDC (talk) 07:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I did search the archives and I couldn't find where the consensus was established. Like I told you, there were multiple viewpoints. You made the claim that there was a consensus established, which means the burden of proof lies on you. Where is it? Where's the proof?Sy9045 (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources are not reliable by default until proven unreliable, but the opposite. The burden is not on me to prove to you that Breitbart is unreliable, or even to point to a single talkpage section where the source was discussed. The fact is that Brietbart's reputation is so poor it's never even been given serious consideration as a source on this page despite being mentioned frequently: therefor, there is a consensus that it is not useful as a source. If you'd like to change that, the burden is on you to establish a consensus for Breitbart's reliability. So if you'd like to make a case for the site's reliability, take it to WP:RSN. That's what it's there for. This is just the way things are done on Wikipedia. -- TaraInDC (talk) 07:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's 6 controversies in a shorter lifetime than the New York Times has been around.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so it only counts as reputable if there are fewer than 6 controversies every 10 years or some arbitrary definition that I don't understand? Even if you read the Breitbart page, most of those controversies are innocuous (like Nancy Pelosi being photoshopped on Miley Cyrus' body or mistakenly citing a Boston.com source, which cited a European source that turned out to be incorrect). Another controversy involved reporting on Anthony Weiner's sexting scandal, which Weiner admitted to and which multiple news media sites like the New York Times and Salon reported on as well. Regardless, citing Wikipedia as proof of unreliability is completely unscientific anyway. What concrete scientific proof are you using to determine what's reliable and what's not reliable?Sy9045 (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Read WP:RS. Breitbart is exclusively known for being a highly biased and unreliable source due to being known for these major breaches of journalistic integrity. There have been multiple discussions as to why it does not qualify for WP:RS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually did read the archives on Breitbart. Like I told the above poster, there were multiple viewpoints and no established consensus. There were also multiple viewpoints on Slate, Salon and the New York Times too. Where exactly is the "established consensus"? I spent almost an hour looking for it and couldn't find it. Maybe you can help.Sy9045 (talk) 07:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked at WP:RSN? Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Breitbart as News RS, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 122#Breitbart.com, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 174#In most circumstances, is Breitbart.com a WP:RS?, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 176#Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for its own author's film review?. I don't know how many more times we can spell this out for you. They do not meet WP:RS because they have explicitly manipulated footage to suit their needs.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not kidding, stop taking about each other and stop insulting each other, it's against the purpose of Wikipedia, violating the GG general sanctions will get you banned from these articles . Dreadstar ☥ 04:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

An unusual sourcing quandary

Okay, I saw someone remove a detail from the background section stating that the gamer identity had come to be identified primarily with men. This was claimed to be "unsourced" and I was confused as I had specifically recalled a source cited at the end of that paragraph making this argument. When I checked the sources I found none of them contained the claim, but then I noticed this Vox article had been updated on October 13, despite being published well before that date. I recalled them having a section that was not in the current version and checked an archive. Sure enough, the archived version does contain the detail about the gamer identity, despite the current version not having it. This does not appear to be a correction as no note is made about the change, so I am curious about how we handle the matter. Should the older version still be used as a source?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

We could theoretically use the archive parameters of cite-web? If it was in the piece when it was added to the page, then the fact that we have an original accessdate as being evidence of this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

But if they removed it would it be considered reliable? I'd suggest looking for another source. Halfhat (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If none of the other numerous sources point this out, wouldn't that be a fringe point? Willhesucceed (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that the original version of the article had an extra section. I will revert my change. DPRoberts534 (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Improving article for neutrality is not feasible if users revert multiple changes in one simple undo with no explanation on talk page

Strongjam, please avoid simply undoing and target the specific edits you are concerned with with talk page explanation.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: See above please. I did add the section, but the talk page doesn't always behave well, and I admittedly didn't explain myself very well at first. Strongjam (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure how I missed it or if edit conflict. I replied above. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Explanation of Revert

Just to further explain my revert. The wording before seems fine to me, but also the change misspelled Sarkeesian. Strongjam (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess I need to be more clear. On the word 'intense' Daily Dot describe it that way. And on the word 'sustained' the sources describe this her as receiving ongoing and sustained harassment. 'False' is much more concise the 'unsubstantiated.' The rest I'm fine with except for the misspelling of Sarkeesian.Strongjam (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

While sources may use words like "intense", "sustained" etc, I believe we should be careful with such on wikipedia as sources may not be taking a NPOV as we are suppose to take on wiki. Calling someone's belief "false" seems problematic. Even if they are wrong (and I personally believe they are wrong) they still believe it. Also, just because he didn't personally write her a review doesn't make it proven false that he didn't possibly have connections to help her get positive reviews, but my understanding is there is nothing at all to substantiate such a belief. I see many concerning things in this article from a NPOV standpoint with respect to it reading as if we the wiki editors have strong opinions on the subject and are trying to get the readers to agree with these opinions and that needs to be avoided/removed in interest of neutrality and to get the tag removed --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Strongjam, I see instead of responding to the talk page concern above regarding avoiding incorporating non-neutral terminology from RS into article, you have simply reverted again [16]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize, I thought your edit comment was asking me to revert just what I had a problem with and then we would discuss. I didn't mean to cause any drama. Looks like it's a moot point right now anyways as Masem has re-written most of it. As far as intense and sustained go, I don't see an POV issues. These aren't value statements but descriptors that help the reader to understand why this is notable. Strongjam (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"Intense" is not neutral terminology. There's a better argument for "sustained" but I personally think "ongoing" is more neutral. However, I do see it's all moot as entire section already completely rewritten. This article is ridiculously chaotic. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Lets try to defuse this

One of the problems is that this is becoming increasingly polarized nature of the debate here, much like GamerGate itself, this helps cause edit wars and makes consensus much harder. Most of us could've probably done better here, I know I could have. I think something needs done, here are some rules I think we should adopt, tell me your thoughts :).Halfhat (talk)

Try to be polite Just try to be as polite as you can, just try to complementary and phrase things as nicely as you can it'll help.

Don't accuse If you think someone is breaking the rules report them or leave a 'polite' note on their talk page, don't go around here going "You agenda pushing SPA". It helps no one.

Don't insult Much like above it helps no one don't go around saying "You SJWs are. . . ." it really helps no one and just drags people into debates.

Apologize If you slip up apologize, it doesn't take long and helps remove bad blood.

If you revert a revert, make a talk section Instead of going into an edit war, if you contest a revert create a talk section so you can discuss the issue, and have others look at it.

Pause before you post Before posting just make yourself take a second to think "Will this benefit the article?".

Consider your bias I suspect most of us here care about the topic, and there's a good chance you have some personal and probably strong opinion of it. You don't need to state it, just keep it in the back of your mind.

Thanks for reading Halfhat (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I just don't even think it needs to be so volatile here that this sort of thing is even necessary to begin with. I've not tried to be anything other than polite but responses all over the talk pages are not polite, are accusatory, are biased without the intention of providing reason for that bias. ~~Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC) (part 1 of 2 of original comment)~~

Something went wrong here; I did not write this.-- Swim Jonse (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

it came in via this edit [17] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is letting children edit this article. Lord of the Flies children, no less. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Willhesucceed: you have been told a number of times that you may not use this page to vent your spleen against other editors, particularly making thinly veiled accusations. Strike your comment and watch your tongue in the future. This article is under special sanctions that allow administrators to act quickly to such continued tendentious editing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Says the guy who's regularly harassed me on this page. Apparently the rules only apply when when it benefits you. Willhesucceed (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, referring to some editors as "Lord of the Flies children" is unproductive, off-topic, and at direct odds with the message of the section that you decided to post it in. Halfhat's suggestions were good, maybe consider taking them to heart. Kaciemonster (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guys looks like I messed something up.Halfhat (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

GameJournoPros article

I thought everyone should know that an article on GameJournoPros was created yesterday and is already at AfD. It's primarily based on SPS, which is bad. I removed an unsourced listing of people allegedly on the GameJournoPros list, but there are still a number of negative claims and insinuations regarding living persons. We've discussed the topic in depth here, and according to our Talk and the BLP noticeboard the consensus was to remove mention of GameJournoPros from this article, but obviously that is another article. I'll probably be cutting out any BLP infringing material soon unless someone else beats me to it. Woodroar (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a mistake to not even mention GameJournosPro in this article. For the reader coming to this issue for the first time, it's a pretty glaring omission. There appear to be a great many reliable sources which discuss the GameJournosPro accusation so that even if you don't think a mailing list where journalists discuss how to coordinate their coverage is an ethics problem (I make no comment on that as my personal opinion on that isn't relevant in this context) there is no question that the accusations are notable and an important part of this overall story.

I tend to agree that a separate article for it is not warranted - it's a part of this story and should be here. Please discuss. (And I don't think the previously closed discussion is sufficient reason to not discuss it again as it was closed before the publication of some important sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt that it will need to be covered in some way, at some point. However, while the list was interesting, it has so far been a non-issue, as nothing significant has come out of it. There have been a few claims of it being used to coordinate coverage, but as far as I'm aware none have managed to stand up to independent scruitiny, unless someone is aware of material I may have missed. So the wording is likely to be brief, and very cautious given the risk of BLP problems. - Bilby (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I was about to propose something here, but I scoured the Internet and basically haven't found any real, independent reliable sources discussing the issue. What we have are a couple GG-linked people on unreliable sources saying "GJP is massive evidence of collusion!" and the people on the list saying "Well, no, it wasn't." There isn't anyone originally disconnected from the debate who's weighed in. As far as mainstream sources are concerned, it's a nothingburger. So coming up with anything substantive is difficult at best. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Some gaming journalists discussed issues relating to their jobs on a private mailing list called GameJournoPros. After some e-mails from the list were leaked, supporters of GamerGate accused its members of using the list to collude with each other on GamerGate-related topics. List members stated that their conversations were freewheeling, often involved disagreement and had fostered professional conduct. The list's owner, Kyle Orland, apologized for an e-mail suggesting that reviewers pay attention to Zoe Quinn's game, but noted that his suggestion had been rejected by other members which, he said, "disproves" the allegations of collusion and "shows the independent spirit of those who participate in the group." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We're talking about the allegations that journalist colluded on a private mailing list, allegations that were quickly debunked? I thought this had been in the article all along, but hmm, I do not see it now. I think it is worth mention, if only to note that is it one of several failed criticisms. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The criticisms were not "debunked" but "denied". "Debunked" is a success verb that implies more than simple denial. Having looked at the leaked emails, I would say that the allegations of collusion are largely and obviously true. So there's not really any justification for us to go further than "denied".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It would seem to be original research for us to inject our opinions of what particular subsets of leaked e-mails mean or don't mean. I've also looked at the leaked e-mails and saw a wide range of opinions on the various issues, and disagree with your interpretation that there was "collusion" in regards to GamerGate. What I saw was one person with a bad idea (the "letter of support") and a number of other people who told that person they had a bad idea and would not participate. There aren't any reliable sources really addressing the issue, as I noted above. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Precisely my point - it would be original research for us to declare that the emails were "debunked" as there are - as you say - a range of opinions about that. We should stick with the milder "denied" - there is an easy consensus that they were denied.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, the Pen & Pencil Club is a venue for journalists in Philadelphia area to get together, talk about issues relating to their profession and whatnot. It has existed since 1892. This mailing list was just a modern version of that and countless others across the nation. "Collusion" among journalists implies is a very loaded word that implies a coordinated intent to manipulate and deceive public opinion on a particular subject. There was no evidence of that whatsoever, so I'm sorry, but "debunked" is rather correct. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Your own opinions of journalistic standards, and mine, are not particularly relevant here. Unless you have an uninvolved third party source saying "debunked" then we should stick with what the sources all do say, which is that the claims of collusion were denied.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc, in that my feeling is that we would need something very strong to justify saying that journalists "colluded". In reading the relevant emails, what I see is a group of journalists in agreement, but not colluding per se. Generally they seem to feel that the issues regarding Quinn are a private matter being used to shame her, and therefore they are individually unwilling to touch it as they don't see it as game-related news. There's some discussion about whether the community should be discussing it on their site's forums, and some questions about where the line should be drawn on coverage, but it all seems fairly tame.

To draw a comparison - if a group of editors on the talk page of a WP article discuss whether or not to include allegations of an affair in a BLP, and decide that it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BLP, are they colluding to leave it out or are they simply in agreement that they should leave it out? There is an issue of perspective, but I'm going to assume the latter unless there's some very strong sources supporting the former. - Bilby (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should not say that journalists colluded. We should stick to what there is clearly no doubt about, and not insert our own editorializing. We know that there were accusations of collusion (as reported in reliable sources) and that there were denials of collusion (also reported in reliable sources). It is unwise for us to take a side.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

My understanding was that you nominated a side, when you said that the allegations of collusion are largely and obviously true. I'm glad that this is not the case. - Bilby (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

My opinion - or that of anyone here - is only important insofar as we all come to the facts with no bias and a clear head in order to understand clearly what reliable sources have said. When people put forward words like "debunked" - a rather bold claim that goes far beyond the sources - it's important to point out that such a word shocks the sensibilities of anyone who has read the sources and the leaked emails. What we clearly have is an accusation and a denial. I don't know of anyone serious (who is not implicated in the collusion) who would say that it's been "debunked".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It is true that the accusations have not been debunked, as accusations such as these can't be. The accusations have also not been substantiated, as there is no way to prove that they are true. In the end, it is simply a matter of perspective. Which is unfortunate for those involved - they can be accused of collusion, but have no means of disproving it. This makes me the cautions as to how it should be covered. I'm happy with Rulong's additions, though, as they are the best we can do with a difficult problem. I am, however, always wary of providing too much weight to accusations made by highly biased sources that can't be proven or adequately defended against. - Bilby (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's important to remember the difference between types of evidence. It's clear that the journalists on the list are in contact - networking is an important part of the industry, after all. Accusations of collusion are based on the circumstance that the journalists are all in contact with each other as well as a few other details. It's what you'd call circumstantial evidence, which, in courts of law, tends only to result in convictions when there is an overwhelming amount of it. For the sake of an encyclopedia, a discussion of circumstantial evidence would need to be handled very carefully and there would need to be some clear, expressed exposition on it from reliable sources. YellowSandals (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that Jimbo is referring to the Destructoid issues, as there has been some lobbying to cover that in WP. My feeling so far is that the GameJournosPro connection to that issue is minor at best - the most that can be claimed is that there was a request for advice on the list, and there may have been a recommendation not to hire someone. (I'm being a bit cautious here, as there have been attempts to draw conclusions from some recent events, none of which are directly related to GG). This particular issue is something that I don't think we should touch, simply because the only connection to GG is that questions were asked on the GameJournosPro list. Other issues might warrant a mention where they are more closely connected to GG. - Bilby (talk)

I'm not familiar with these Destructoid issues... is there a good source? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

CinemaBlend has something: [18]. - Bilby (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've written this up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You cite Kain for his opinion about collusion, but don't note his statements about members of the list trying to pressure The Escapist's editor-in-chief into shutting down discussion of allegations against Quinn? We should mention what allegations have been made about the list where we have good sources on it rather than cherry-picking the sources or statements that say there is no collusion. Orland's statement on the matter, in particular, is very much a conflicted opinion seeing as he created the list and would naturally be inclined to defend himself and the list. While I can understand people want less space for mentioning this, it should be representative of all coverage, not just the coverage favorable to those saying there was nothing wrong with the list. Destructoid's Editor-in-Chief resigned, for heaven's sake, and I think that at least warrants a mention.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TDA and Jimbo. Can we work out the text to add, or do we need to go the RfC route? Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

TDA, I referred to it but did not spell out the exact details. It's either all or nothing so I guess you want nothing right now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This was just trimmed out by kaciemonster and I agree w/ the general goal of slimming these things down. If we want Kain, or any other source, for additional claims we should be clear about what we're saying and make sure that we don't have a series of sentences which serve mostly to reinforce previous ones. I don't have an objection to mentioning the destructoid resignation or (possibly) the escapist bit, but we should be careful to make sure that our reaction doesn't mirror the reaction the world had to Journolist--which is to say that we mistake hue and cry for actual malfeasance (as we're sort of doing with the Gawker/Intel stuff). Protonk (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The above text from TDA misrepresents Kain's description of the issue. Kain states that Kuchera urges Tito to shut down The Escapist forum where the discussion of Quinn was occurring, but Tito refuses, arguing that a place for discussion is a healthy thing. 1) Kuchera is the only person quoted as doing this and 2) If we define "pressure" as "any time someone suggests a different course of action," we render that word meaningless. Thus, describing this exchange as a cabal conspiracy, rather than an instance of two professionals disagreeing with each other, seems to be, at best, stretching the truth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see Kain only mentions one name. Fudge's piece discusses his role in it as well. Kain does seem to allude to there being more than one person when stating "Tito writes in response to Kuchera and others, 'but I don’t know if the answer is to delete the thread. The Escapist is not giving harassment a home, but allowing civil discussion on a matter that people are emotional about.'" If you saw the e-mails you would know there were at least three members who actively pushed for Tito to close the thread.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Do we want this shit covered or not?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that the section you've added on the list is really good, and I have no complaints at all, and it is very nicely worded. But I don't feel that we should include the Destructoid issue. Blacklisting someone can be illegal, and the accusation is that the editor may have acted illegally through his email to the list, and for that we need a better source and more to go on than the interpretation of his comment being offered. In regard to the editor quitting, there has been no statement as to whether or not it is connected to GG or the list, but some people are reading that into it based on the timing. - Bilby (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I did mistake the conversation going on here as desiring its coverage in the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That's cool - I think you did a terrific job on the section, though. Nicely balanced. - Bilby (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It's quite nice. It doesn't take a stand on anything, just reports what the relevant parties have said in reliable sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the Destructoid issue should be included, but I do think Ryulong's version was a bit too direct and certain. When I added the section in my latest epic Leeroy Jenkins edit it was phrased as follows: "Following reports that the list had discussed the firing of a journalist at Destructoid and potentially having him blacklisted with other outlets, the editor-in-chief, Dale North resigned from his position at the outlet." To me saying there were reports that the list discussed potentially having him blacklisted adds sufficient uncertainty and avoids linking to any single person. Perhaps you would prefer that phrasing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I know you might think I'm the last person that'd defend a Destructoid writer but isn't that a little BLP violation? Acussing someone of blacklisting is a serious claim and is downright illegal, should we sourced way better Loganmac (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you think of a way we can phrase it so that it is less of a problem. Do you think my wording was sufficient?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Drop box for potential sources for which you do not have specific content suggestion at this time

Gamergate supporters party at strip club - I guess thats what you do to help counter the image that you are merely about sexual harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how going to a strip club constitutes "sexual harassment", but that's neither here nor there. It may be a worthwhile source for direct, sourced statements from some Gamergate supporters, especially the 8Chan subset. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

perchance i was rude in my last messagical message. My point still stands that this has a very loose connection to GamerGate, and does seem like a needless character smearing of a disabled person. --The Defender of Light Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing >Inventory< 03:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If the article decides to quote Brennan about Gamergate, this could be used in conjunction with other interviews he's done. Aside from that it seems to just be fluff.TuxedoMonkey (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

TRPD, your comment next to the link is unconstructive and useless. Considering the high emotions this article seems to produce, you should stay as neutral as possible and avoid possible inflammatory comments. Omegastar (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"Belief"

"Under the false belief" seems to go a little too far in assuming what was in people's heads. It also doesn't seem to be reflective of the sources' coverage of the allegations. Can we change "attacking Quinn under the false belief that her relationship resulted in favorable media reviews" to "attacking Quinn claiming falsely that her relationship resulted in favorable media reviews" or "attacking Quinn on the false premise that her relationship resulted in favorable media reviews"? (Or similar.) Neither of these make uncited assumptions about what anybody was thinking. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

People accused Quinn of having slept with someone for positive coverage. There was no proof that this positive coverage existed at any time before or after this relationship existed. That's why "false" is used.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not questioning "false", I know it's false and have said so elsewhere. I'm questioning "belief". We don't know, and it doesn't really matter, if they sincerely believed this, all that matters for us is that they said it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is fair enough, but perhaps this wording is what is in the citations?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not. Both of my responses here are things I pointed out in my initial post. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I think your proposed changes aren't too controversial. Seems like a {{sofixit}} situation then.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say something along the lines of erroneous rather than false, in these contexts false has bad connotations. Halfhat (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Erroneous is actually a good choice. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Going to try to get this figure

Andy Baio's analysis of 3 days of #GG twitter has been referenced by the WAPost and Polygon with the image of the interrelated tweets (irregardless of side) a lovely encapuslation of what this looks like from a 60,000ft view. I'm going to try to see if this is in the PD or Creative Commons to be able to use on here. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

He got back to me, and noted he had a 30 day copyright exclusive with Medium, but after that is up he can put this into PD/CC. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice to get an image for the top. Halfhat (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, though I was thinking of having it in discussing how social media has played into GG (which in turn can focus on the issues people have found with Twitter about poor blocking controls). --MASEM (t) 23:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we agree to remove redundant quotes

I'll have a look through now but there were several points where someone was paraphrased then quoted adding no new information, it's pretty much just ugly bloat, would anyone have a problem if I cut them out on sight. I think I feel confident enough about this to try to be bold. Halfhat (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems better than it was. Halfhat (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"Long standing"

@Diego Moya: This is getting tiresome. Every single time someone changes the adjective describing the "issues of sexism and misogyny" phrase in the lead paragraph it suddenly becomes under contention. It keeps getting changed back and forth from being an exact quote from any number of the citations immediately at the end of that sentence. It was previously "long-documented" until Kaldari changed it from an exact quote. Before that it was some other word or phrase that had the same intent and meaning. This is so incredibly ridiculous at this point. Stop contesting every single new word that is put in that sentence. "Long-documented", "intractible", etc. This is unnecessary pedantry and you all know it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean it's barely been a day since you last complained about this word.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

And I will complain every time it's changed to a wording not directly supported by reliable sources, as it is now. I did not contest "long-documented" as that one was supported by the reference, but someone has decided to change it back again to the unacceptable "long-standing" which is still unverifiable. The burden is on you to provide adequate references; if you don't have them, I will remove it again. Diego (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

They mean the exact same thing. We do not have to have it as an exact quote every single time. Ingrained, long-documented, intractible, long-standing. There's just never anything that satisfies everyone on both sides of this, particularly when an editor who had not been involved in any of the disputes here prior to the RFC or the AN threads changed it on his own volition.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Diego Moya, this is childish.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear candidate for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Diego, are you really going to go WP:POINT with this argument that "long-standing" isn't a neutral and appropriate paraphrase of "long-documented"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The content is challenged. The burden is on you to provide a direct reference. If you don't like "long-documented", find another wording directly supported by the sources. Diego (talk)

At least three editors (myself, Ryulong and Kaldari) agree that "long-standing" is an appropriate and neutral paraphrase of the source's "long-documented" wording. Launch an RFC if you disagree, Diego. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

North, maybe you could elaborate on how sticking to what the source says, 'long-documented' could be controversial or cause contention, when it's what the source stated verbatim? Tutelary (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Just so long as you don't argue that there's too many quotes opposing GamerGate, when you refuse to let quotes be replaced by paraphrases. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh, how's that to deal with the issue of the lead being 'long standing' or 'long documented'? I'm not really sure what quotes have to do in this discussion, honestly. Tutelary (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There was some intense controversy -now at the archives- against using "long standing", as it implies that the issues have existed for a long time, but nobody could provide references supporting how long in the past was that meant to be; not to say that the words themselves have not been used by any reliable source and they haven't meet WP:BURDEN. The wording "long documented" only means that there's a wide array of documents, but has no such implication of being extended to the past.

BTW, NorthBySouthBaranof is reverting so fast that a minor edit of mine that was intended to correct an extraneous reference that I inserted from my mobile phone was turned into a full revert of his change. It likely doesn't pose a big problem, as seemly no one is enforcing the WP:3RR rule around here (at least not for certain editors), but it certainly entails an unpleasant experience, not being able to correct a minor error even for a few seconds after making it. Diego (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If we wish to stick to the precise wording of the source, then we must be sure that decontextualising a single word does not distort the meaning of the wider context. The full quote, with long-documented in context is:

In truth, the harassment has been going on much longer than that. For Quinn and many women who do what she does, threats and sexual innuendo are par for the course. Sexism in gaming is a long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable problem. _{(my bolding, for emphasis)}

The full quote says a lot more than just long-documented. In fact it goes much further than even long-standing, which does not capture the normality of the behaviour expressed by par for the course, nor the issue of its intractability. Personally, I would go with inveterate if we must condense the meaning to single word or phrase. But whatever is selected, long-documented misrepresents the clear meaning of the source as a whole. CIreland (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that it doesn't say how long is "much longer"; there was no consensus in the previous talk if that was two years or twenty, as all the references provided used subjective measures, and there was no clear criteria for what episodes implied sexism and mysoginy. As such, my feeling is that any attempt to introduce a qualifier to the "issues of sexism and mysoginy" is WP:UNDUE weight if it implies describing something that the references themselves couldn't properly define; though I would not oppose "inveterate" if it is directly supported by some reference, as it seems vague enough to capture the vagueness of the sources, without implying any particular time frame. Diego (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Inveterate works for me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the full quote, CIreland. It seems to me "long-standing" did an admirable job encapsulating the meaning of the passage as a whole. You can change it to "inveterate", or "ingrained", but neither word is really better or easier to understand than "long-standing". Andreas JN 466 22:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Or we can helpfully quote Marc Ambinder, a well-respected non-games journalist, who wrote of "deep-rooted anti-feminist sentiment" in the gaming community. [19] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw that. [20] That works well, actually; kudos. Andreas JN 466 22:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind - at least when I was pushing for some type of language, it was meant to be applied to the entire industry, pointing to the fact that the industry has fostered sexism/misogyny (unintentionally) and that is in part what is influencing this event. It was not meant to be term to apply strictly to the gamer crowd - not that it might have been long-standing with them, but it was more difficult to demonstrate this compared to the industry. --MASEM (t) 04:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a fair warning

It has been brought to my attention that a couple of posts have been made in a subreddit that this article should be "Sea Lion-ed" with a group of people making incessant arguments to try to get some of the other editors here to lose their cool and get topic banned, so they can try to slant the article in their favor. (note: I am not going to mention which way, or which subreddit, because I want folks to focus on making productive suggestions of changes to the article, not the usual Player v Player blarney that things devolve into sometimes). If you're new to Wikipedia, great, hope you enjoy it, and hope you stick around. If you're only here to make this article all about the BIG TRUTHS of GamerGate (pro or con.. what we generally call a Single Purpose Account.. please realize that you'll A) Likely be hit with discretionary sanctions for disrupting discussion, and B) The natural reaction to someone incessantly arguing and barraging is to dig their heels in MORE and resist changes. SirFozzie (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Halfhat (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if we are going to be able to tell when it's started. Artw (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably when Anita goes on Colbert.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I would also hope that there is not a whole lot of jumping to conclusions and false accusations of being an SPA, something that has taken place earlier. Age of accounts, number of edits, etc can be easily checked of course, and I do hope that this will be done before any user is labeled an SPA. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate for non-gamers

If you can get the article in the vicinity of this one, it will be a good article. If you can't, it will be a poor article. Willhesucceed (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia can't provide an article that reads like that, because that article is an opinion piece, and is not attempting to provide a neutral point of view, but the author's point of view. It is a good opinion piece, but a Wikipedia article can't be an opinion piece. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It might be a good idea for non gamers to explain what GamerGate actually is. Yes, it's a controversy, but which side are "GamerGate supporters" on? It's not at all clear from reading this! Simongarrett (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Lets sort out the introduction once and for all

I'd say the introduction suffers from the most bias problems and needs to be addressed. To prevent edit warring I say we start this section to decide how to go about making it as objective as possible, with as little loaded language as possible Halfhat (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Introduction? How about the entire article. This article has been gone about in entirely the wrong way. Anybody writing an article like this needs to take a massive step back when doing so. By all means write about a particular point of view, but don't carry on about it. For example:

"However, Gamergate has become most notable for a series of misogynistic and violent threats and harassment targeting Quinn and other prominent women in gaming, which have drawn widespread condemnation of the movement"

Now, who says this is the case? From the looks of it the author. Certainly depending on who you ask you will get mixed responses on this, some would agree with that, others including myself would disagree. Take a step back, by all means state there are accusations of misogyny, but importantly say who is making them. The author making an opinionated claim like that would not be tolerated on any other article and I see no reason at all to make an exception. —Frosty ☃ 11:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

When multiple non-video games publications are all saying "misogyny" and "violent threats" then that's notability.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, it's a verifiable fact that the movement is most notable for its harassment issues. This is trivial to demonstrate through a brief Google News search of "Gamergate." Reliable, mainstream sources focus almost exclusively on the harassment issues and basically ignore the ethics claims. The New York Times, MSNBC, etc. didn't write stories about someone's ethical concerns in journalism — they wrote stories about women in video games being harassed and threatened out of their homes. The harassment issues dramatically overshadow any and all points Gamergate might have once been interested in making, and have resulted in widespread condemnation and rejection of the movement in mainstream sources. Just about every mainstream source on the issue concludes "Gamergate is fatally tainted by harassment and anti-feminism." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, why are we saying that the allegations against Quinn were "proven" false, when the only sources say that Stephen Totilo, Grayson's boss, said he didn't find any wrongdoing? I'm not saying we need to question his account, but acting as if his word is objective fact isn't neutral. There's also no mention of Grayson being listed in Depression Quest credits or his admission to having been a tester for the game. Agent Chieftain (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We've been over this a lot, but we're saying that they were proven false because all of the sources (including Breitbart) have been describing them that way. Grayson didn't write about Quinn when in a relationship with her, so there is no doubt about the issue.

No reliable source has covered Depression Quest's credits, and I'm going to make the guess that none will - it simply isn't an issue. Accordingly, we can't cover it. - Bilby (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Depression Quest is a reliable source when it comes to its own credits where as a newspaper can only be a secondary source when no journalist was present. Andrew Swallow (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue is how much weight we should give it. At the moment no WP:RS cares about the credits so we don't include it in this article. Strongjam (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The lead is currently too biased in favor of Gamergate sources, which are effectively a fringe POV. The entire first paragraph is basically a hand-waiving apology from a pro-gamergate POV. It effectively says "Yes, there was some harassment, but that was only from a 'minority', and wait, we have real concerns but for some reason the mainstream media won't listen to us!" Gamergate was an online lynch mob. There's no reason we have to whitewash that just because the mob has suddenly discovered Wikipedia and doesn't like being called a mob. Kaldari (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the first paragraph to an older version. I am not aware of consensus for that bloated mess which essentially shoved down anti-GG rhetoric down readers' throats instead of concisely and neutrally describing the situation. It's the first paragraph in the lead. You can mention sexism and misogyny (like it already is now) but overall it should be a quick summary. If it is to be expanded we should have consensus. starship.paint ~ regal 14:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not "anti-Gamergate rhetoric". It's an accurate summary of what has happened. There is never going to be any way to cast a positive light on the Gamergate movement. The version of the lead that explains that women have left their homes and that the media does not acknowledge Gamergate's goals as being sincere or ever feasibly realized in 3 months time should be restored rather than constantly dilutin the article to satisfy a contingent that will never be happy until it's heavily biased in their way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention that the RFC is full of new editors complaning almost exclusively about this sterile and short lead paragraph that they all say is biased in favor of the pro-Gamergate side because it gives their "it's also about ethics in journalism" meme prevalence.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I counted exactly one new (and zero old) editor doing so since my last post. Unless they complained before I even made the edit, I don't see how you can say it's "full of new editors". Anyway, the women fleeing their homes is already in the second paragraph of the lead. Unless anyone is physically harmed or attacked, I do not think it warrants mention in the very first paragraph of the lead. The rest of the stuff you're talking about, you can discuss to include it in the second/third paragraph of the lead. starship.paint ~ regal 23:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I meant editors new to the content dispute. Not brand new editors on the site.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no misunderstanding, I counted only Sandstein. starship.paint ~ regal 02:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps he's the only one raising issues about the lead, but Kaldari, Cuchullain, Slverseren, CIreland, and Robofish all seem to have issues with how the pro-GG POV is being over-presented.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Me too! The recent coverage of "what is gamergate" is that it is ostensibly some vague allegations or complaints being used as a cover for a trollfest of harassment and terrorism. We are FAR from being in sync with such descriptions with FAR too much time and validity given to these "ostensibles" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The introduction does need a bit more text for non-gamers. What is GamerGate? Which side are GamerGate supporters on? And what do they support. What is pro-GG and what is anti-GG - which side is "misogynist"? All this is obvious to those that already understand, but they won't need to read the article. I suggest a few sentences that make sense to someone that has no background knowledge of the affair. Simongarrett (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Digitimes

Digitimes has been discussed several times and I would like to bring it up again, because they released a new article today.

Commentary: Time is running out for console makers to clean up GamerGate (9. September)

Commentary: Calculating the cost of GamerGate, many losers, 2 potential big winners (30. October)

Racuce (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Digitimes is one of a handful of outlets that are doing any decent coverage of the matter. Good for them. I notice also another mention of "moral panic". That's been referred to in several articles, which I've compiled somewhere in one of the archives. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It also further adds to the Criticism of the Press/Media articles, which I've, again, neatly collected in one of the recent-er archives. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The first article is from September, and thus a rather out-of-date take on the subject. The 2nd one acknowledges the minority status of the "pro-GG" side, i.e. "The overwhelming negative perception being presented by the media of GamerGate has caused any potentially legitimate claims being made by its supporters to be largely ignored, and any attempt to present their evidence to be dismissed outright". Tarc (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers on Gamergate

Video Willhesucceed (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Mmm, CHSommers does it again. --The Defender of Light Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing >Inventory< 09:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you stop pasting links to this page like it's KotakuInAction already? Present information found in these links that you want to be incorporated into the article for once FFS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What does "FFS" mean? AnyyVen (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Google can answer many questions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The answer took two fewer words. AnyyVen (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

People have been upset that I used the actual word. Are abbreviations off limits now too?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of being upset, personally I couldn't care less, it's when you violate WP:CIVIL by pointing those words towards people that Wikipedia should take notice Loganmac (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes. Replacing offensive words with abbreviations that most readers recognize as the offensive words means that the message you bring in your comment is no different than if you were to use the full words. For example, telling someone to 'STFU' is just as uncivil as actually spelling out the words.Omegastar (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

To get back to the topic, what exactly do you propose to add or change based on the above video, Willhesucceed? There's already as section on Sommers' support for Gamergate. Does the above video add to or contradict anything in there? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Her opinion on feminism should be noted seeing she's an expert on the topic, and we'll see if any articles cover this to gather more info. But Willhesucceed you should really recommend what to include. And although Ryulong yet again proves his behaviour and uncivility (and yet again no admin does anything) you should propose ideas Loganmac (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't this the only actual source made by a scholar/academic? Retartist (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Her proclamation of being their "mom" now makes things questionable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That term was not coined by her. We have been referring to her as "based mom" for a while now Retartist (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Scholars can't joke now Loganmac (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It does mean she's taken a side when neutrality is what you all have been striving for.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

She's taken the side of what she personally believes is reasonable based on academic evidence and studying the matter. Loganmac (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

She's taken a side that arguably shares her views on third wave feminism.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that she is an expert in feminism, although her strong anti-feminist stance is an issue when using her writings. However, she isn't an expert in gaming and gaming culture, so we need to be a bit more cautious there. At any rate, in listening to the video, I can't find much we can use in this article unless we want to provide more coverage of Sommers' opinions, and I don't see much value in taking that path. - Bilby (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"she isn't an expert in gaming and gaming culture"... That's OK, almost nobody else cited in this article is either.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Her views on gaming shouldn't be included but her views on what she calls a misrepresentation based on sexism and misogny should be expanded on. And add something when sources cover her if she hasn't been blacklisted already Loganmac (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The two are intrinsically connected, given that she is talking about sexism in gaming, and her views on sexism and feminism have generally been regarded as extreme. We already have most of a full paragraph and a photo of her - there doesn't seem to be anything substantial that we can add from the video unless there is a specific suggestion to consider, and I'm worried about giving her opinions too much weight. - Bilby (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

She's an expert on feminism like Ken Ham is an expert on evolution. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you're mistaking this for the comments section of one of the Gawker sites? This is Wikipedia. We're supposed to be discussing how to improve the article, with as much civility as can be mustered given this contentious topic. Snark for its own sake is contributing nothing to this process. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think an accurate assessment of Somners is complex. I've seen some of her videos. She's got a strong grasp of research methodology and brings it to bear on the issues. She expresses a bias, but it's not a hard one - mainly she cites weak research methods as her reasoning to disagree with conclusions, and the social sciences are notorious for flubby research. It's due to how we can't do many direct empirical studies of the brain yet since we can't watch it function in action. The entire reason she's called an anti-feminist is because... well... she questions the studies - and if the studies are not to be questioned at all, then it's nothing more than a hokey pseudoscience. Fact is, biased or not, she does discuss and understand the material at the level of an expert to the point where you'd need to be on her degree of knowledge to proactively dispute with her. She claims she's a feminist. It seems unfair to say she isn't an expert on her subject just because she has conservative leanings. YellowSandals (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Iamcuriousblue: Do you have a substantive comment on the issue? EvergreenFir has made a valid point with an analogy. Do you doubt what was said? Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that piece of snark rises to the level of "substantive comment". I also think you and EvergreenFir might do well to reacquaint yourself with WP:CIVIL, because it impresses me that EvergreenFir is not even making an attempt to stay within the bounds of it. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I like how after attacks, this treeperson goes and does a WikiLove edit. kek --The Defender of Light Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing >Inventory< 09:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing incivil about my comment. I made an analogy about Sommer's qualifications. See my comment below. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not Sommers is a feminist is irrelevant. She has a long history of being noteworthy in discussions of gender, including feminism. That's all that matters. Willhesucceed (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Sadly correct. My point is she's no an expert on feminism, but she is notable. The question is if she's WP:FRINGE. Academically she is, but for this article probably not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is Somners not an expert on Feminism? She holds a PhD in philosophy and is a former professor, and she displays her chops when she talks about the research methods. Disagreeing with the methods used to acquire data doesn't mean someone isn't an expert in the thing they question - in the sciences, in fact, a researcher is usually seen as a hack if they aren't critical of their own methodology and the methodology of others. It's a core aspect of proper academics, and it's somewhat telling of tone that Somners' criticism somehow invalidates her expertise. Like I say, she expresses biases, but can you dispute the things she's saying? I can't, but that's because, in spite of understanding how methodology is evaluated, I lack the breadth of knowledge to actually argue toe to toe with someone like Somners.

In this video linked here, she points out that Anita Sarkeesian is using social models that originate from nearly four decades ago. She specifically cites the study and explains how that theory has evolved since that time. Like it or not, Somners approaches this topic as an expert. If it's true that Anita really is using outdated theories from the mid seventies, then perhaps a fairly critical expert since it means Anita is being disruptive to the entire field of study when people think of her as a scholar. If you wanted to refute what Somners is saying, you'd need someone with as much background in this subject to actually discuss it. That's what it means to be an expert in a field. YellowSandals (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I should point that scientific discussion isn't meant to be determined by popular opinion. Your most crucial factor is methodology which can be repeated under peer review, which consistently produces the same results. Although there may be popular academic theories taught in classes now, if those aren't peer reviewed and happen to merely be the pet theories of the researchers teaching the classes, they amount to a lot of hogwash. Expensive hogwash for the students paying to learn them. I think you don't understand how valuable it is to have scathing cynics in the scientific community. They don't always make many friends, but they're essential, and they are experts. YellowSandals (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a valid debate in the literature about whether or not Sommers is a feminist, but there's no reason to extend that to questioning her credentials on the topic. That said, the topic she is discussing is gaming culture, not feminism, and expertise in feminism does not necessarily extend to expertise in gaming culture. Thus we need to be cautious about accepting her self-published comments about gaming culture as more than opinion. - Bilby (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

People in academia arguing over validity of their theories and methodologies is commonplace, and is hardly evidence of someone "being disruptive to the entire field of study." To use an example I'm familiar with, grounded theory has been the subject of internecine warfare practically from the moment it gained common currency, as its originators split over methodological disputes shortly thereafter and there are now two schools of thought in GT. This doesn't mean that either the Glaser or Strauss & Corbin schools are disrupting data analysis studies — it just means there's different opinions. And now I'm having bad flashbacks to graduate school so I'm going to stop. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Anita considered an expert on gaming or Feminism by Wikipedia? The reason why Somner's criticism is meaningful to this debate is because Somners is suggesting that Anita, and in fact perhaps a number of the Feminist experts involved in this controversy, actually aren't experts at all. There's a difference between having your own avenues of research versus citing forty year-old research that has seen been drastically altered by updated studies. Again, you guys keep saying there's no valid ethical complaints, but if these people are impersonating experts while demonstrating a very poor grasp of the contemporary material just so they can stir up ad-clicks and donations, the ethics are bonkers. For that matter, is there such a thing as a gaming expert? That would be someone in the industry who makes games, right? But that doesn't describe Anita either. YellowSandals (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian is in the article because she has been widely reported as a target of harassment related to Gamergate, not because she's being used as an expert on gaming or feminism. Strongjam (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Also because her commentary on gaming and gaming culture have gotten far more attention from reliable sources. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just bring it up because there have been numerous complaints that parties requesting neutrality have been "POV pushers". Just try to understand that if some people involved in this controversy are setting back the public perception of gender research by forty years, it might not be wise to write the article as though there are good guys and bad guys, and nor should you assume everyone with concerns of neutrality is strictly working against you. YellowSandals (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree that she is an expert on the topic of feminism, it is worth keeping in mind that she is also strongly opposed to the stance taken by most feminists, and many have argued that she is anti-feminism. Accordingly, when she suggests that a feminist has set the movement back 40 years, based on an interpretation of a single line, through a self-published commentary uploaded onto YouTube, I'm inclined to take that with a grain of salt.

At any rate, the point is probably moot. We're not looking at critical analysis of Sarkeesian here, and Sommers isn't saying anything additional about GG that is useful for the article. - Bilby (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is some coverage of it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Milo interview

Is The David Pakman Show an RS?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljIMMCQyexA

Willhesucceed (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you describe what content from the interview you would like to possibly incorporate into the article? We should not have to guess what you want to be done with these constant posts.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

And why should we feature content from the Yiannopoulos interview over his Wu interview? Why choose one over the other?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Wu's already given ample coverage. MY's description of Gamergate, and his criticism of Wu seem appropriate to include. Willhesucceed (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

And no, you "should not have to guess" what to do with a source. You should investigate the source and decide whether anything's worthy of inclusion. Clearly my opinion doesn't matter, since it's always shot down, so I leave it to others to decide what to do with sources. Willhesucceed (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure what you want to do. You simply post these links and don't explain what we're supposed to get out of them. Most of this interview so far is just a retort to Wu's prior interview. An interview like this does not necessarily validate his opinions when they heavily violate WP:BLP to cover. Do you want us to say he doesn't believe that the women were threatened? Do you want us to say that he thinks it's really about ethics in journalism and feminist bullying? Give us more than a link. Give us suggestions for improving the article with the content of the link.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Because her points are already included through her interviews on other outlets? Loganmac (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That's because she involuntarily became a part of the debate and Milo inserted himself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It might be usable for his opinions if we determine that his opinion is notable, but an unsubstantiated opinion that casts aspersions on a living person and insinuates wrongdoing would seem to be right out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

A general thought on the RS matter first . This is an interview from a source that hasn't been used before featuring a contributor from a site that is mocked as one of Wikipedia's least reliable sources. Moreover it's not our job to give equal coverage to anyone inserting an opinion. Is there any particular reason why this person's opinion is more notable or trustworthy? To quote WP:BLPSOURCES "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources", and the bar for that is currently fairly high in this article. ♪ Tstorm (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. There's really no point in me even providing sources, is there? This is ridiculous. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If your source is a well-known ideologue making entirely-unsupported accusations of wrongdoing against a person, then no, there's really no point in providing that because it has no business in an encyclopedia article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Unlike the ideologues that subscribe to your view of the matter, of course, who are perfectly allowable. How do you guys not see what you're doing to this article? Willhesucceed (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If there are any unsupported accusations of wrongdoing against named people in this article, they should be removed. Not sure what you are arguing, but I don't believe any such thing should be allowable from either side. Unsupported claims and/or insinuations that the victim of internationally-reported death threats made them up is simply not acceptable encyclopedic content. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

He's pointing that several sources being quoted on the attack against GamerGate do happen to be ideologues, by some opinions. To a lot of outside observers, the entire conflict is highly ideological in nature, which is part of why there's so much moral smearing instead of objective discussion. Consequently, if you try to make the argument, "We can't quote known ideologues", you wind up eliminating a lot of potential sources. Trouble being that you'd have a hard time proving who's an ideologue, since any ideologue functioning as an editor believes their ideals are singular Truth. YellowSandals (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, please specify where we are quoting "known ideologues" making unsupported allegations about specific living people? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Leaked Emails Details

Jayen466, I might be missing something. I clicked through on the Forbes article ("the full exchange of emails" link) to what looked like Milo's personal blog with 2 links to Breitbart articles. I read through both, but for some reason I'm not seeing the email mentioned in the Forbes article that you elaborated on. The one referenced in this quote, "In one, writer Ryan Smith asks questions about where other writers and publications draw the line on writing about the private lives of subjects. He is quickly shouted down." Do you mind pointing me to where the original is? Kaciemonster (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's this one. If not, this one. Ctrl+F "smith" or "ryan". Willhesucceed (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh! Thank you. That's what I was missing. I read through the first email from "Kyle" and at the bottom saw "Click here to reply" and thought it was the comments section. Whoops. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

My concern has been addressed by this re-write . But just so you understand where I was coming from: the e-mail by Ryan Smith that the Forbes article mentions read as follows:

Wow, this whole thing makes me feel very old. Lordy. So, I definitely don’t think anyone’s sex life should be news and I certainly wouldn’t write about it on a site. But quick question: how did some of you decide to publish the Josh Mattingly story from earlier this year: that appeared to be based on a private conversation about sex. Where do you see the line being drawn? And how do you guys feel about the Snapchat CEO’s emails from college being a story? I was also wondering if when some of you published stories about Zoe Quinn’s harassment — did you actually ask for evidence of said harassment or just go by what she wrote on Twitter.

Smith expanded in a subsequent e-mail:

I’m just asking where the line is drawn at publishing messages that were private that have become public because someone posted them on the web. Josh Mattingly’s sexual harassment of the game dev (which is super terrible) doesn’t appear to be part of an interview, it appears to be informal chat made public. The Snapchat CEO’s emails became a big story not too long ago, and it was because private emails were made public. There’s also the case of Anthony Weiner’s sexually explicit messages. Surely it’s not all black and white when it comes to these stories.

In each of these cases, Smith was talking about inappropriate messages from men (each of them subsequently apologised) that were originally private, but then became the topic of news articles. Andreas JN 466 18:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

We really should not be linking to Milo's website.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Major lead change as to eliminate a detail-heavy second para

I have been bold and have done a significant rewrite of the lead [21] - it stays to much of what was already there, but the primary reason at this point is that the old second paragraph is a lot of details on the specifics of the harassment aspect - again, not that this is not a key part of the issue, but the details of specifically who and/or what is involved at that level are best left to the body. In this manner, I was even able to eliminate Quinn's name from the lead because while she was central to all this, it's not so much her (or only her) any more, but "all those" harassed.

The structure is done to be as brief a summary of the core events to date, and arranged to understand (and, my attempt) and make it clear that the ethics angle is the one that is being far overshadowed by the press's opinion of the harassment as sexist/misogynist. While the harassment aspects are clearly the more predominate concept here due to sourcing, the flow of information is much easily to understand to explain the ethics side first, and then be 100% clear while that was all going on, people were being harassed and threatened, subsequently burying the ethics arguments under that. This I feel is about as unbiased we can get on the lead while still acknowledging the fact that the press has not seen the GG side favorable due to the harassment.

I've tried to keep all the critical sourcing in this from the lead (there's only one I'm seeing when I previewed it that doesn't come up). --MASEM (t) 15:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's an improvement over what was there previously in terms of neutrality, but it should include mention that the accusations in question were originally made in blog post by ex-boyfriend. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

We have to be careful there. His blog post didn't allege she did anything for positive coverage, his blog post was just used by others to allege that. Strongjam (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Strongjam has the right idea. The problem with the previous lede's second paragraph is that one you started identifying all the major harassment victims, you have to keep adding, and while that's fine in the body, it's not for the lede. Here, by glossing over the origin of the accusation, we don't have to get into far too much detail on the exact nature of the claim. A lot of complaints - beyond the bias issues - has been "what is GG?" and by focusing on the major points and not the details, we can answer that better. (I hope :) --MASEM (t) 16:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Point taken regarding blog post not specifically making the allegations, but to my understanding, the blog post was the trigger of this, or at least a major trigger, so it seems it should be mentioned in the lead.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, if blog post mention is added, the lead might end up too long if it is adequately explained, so I can see your point for omitting specific mention of it. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a good re-write Maseum, thank you! If I can suggest, though, regarding the sentence: "These threats drew intentional media attention to the situation, who broadly condemned the Gamergate movement as one driven by sexism and misogyny based on the pattern of harassment, and calling out the drive for journalistic ethics reform as a front for a prolonged harassment campaign.."

Maybe change that to "These threats drew international media attention, with media outlets condemning Gamergate as a harassment campaign motivated by sexism and misogyny. Numerous publications have dismissed Gamergate's purported stance on journalistic integrity, assessing the stance as a front to deflect scrutiny of the harassment."

I think that's a little clearer and establishes the expressed motive behind what the journals are doing. The biggest issue, I think, was using the phrase "calling out", because that implies they're intentionally trying to bait a fight from Gamer Gate. YellowSandals (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You do not reduce the harassment that has been the major covered point to half a sentence and then bloat the rest with the content that all the major sources for weeks have labeled "ostensible" at best. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. Do you understand the purpose of the lead? It is supposed to summarize the content of the article. The enter second paragraph reiterates in far too much detail what is covered in about 7 paraphraphs of the article, delegating the other 30-odd paragraphs to the smaller 1st and 3rd para. So you have the balance all wrong. Further, as soon as you start going into details like that, if there ccontinues to be further harassment against other major figures, we're going to have to include them. In my rewrite, about 40% of the article is reflected in one paragarph, another 30% in another, and the rest between the other two. That's the absolutely correct balance for the lead, irregardless of the weight in the sources. It is also clearly less bias and much more clear what Gamergate is. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll give it this - it does at least try to avoid WP:BLP issues by taking some token steps towards splitting the false allegations against Quinn from the other GamerGate claims. Still gives too much weight to said claims and not enough to the harrassment though, and doesn't fix the length problem. Artw (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

For a lead, how much more can you say about the harassment out side of 1) summarizing the general events and suspected parties and 2) that the media broadly condemned it and accused the GG side of using ethics as a front to continue it? To insert more would require to dive into specific details, naming those harassed; naming names in this situation isn't a BLP problem, but as soon as you name one or two you have to name the rest, and that is what is weighing down the previous version. In other words, to keep the lede tight and concise, we have to gloss over some details. And to wit, the only fresh aspect of the proGG side that I added that was not already in the prior version was the GG moderates policing the harassers; everything else that could be taken as proGG already existed in some form or another. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I can see some merits to that approach, but per WP:WEIGHT would involve cutting down on what you call the "pro-GG" material, not expanding it. Artw (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

To explain the basic concept of Gamergate to a fresh reader that is trying to understand what it is, you have to go into more of established details of the proGG; mind you, I would also argue that in my change, we should add some of the specific impacts that the harassment has caused (devs leaving homes, leaving the industry, IGDA/FBI collaboration, etc.) since that's a significant broad facet of why the press has condemned the movement. But consider that the version I had, if you consider the proGG "favoring" statements, are : 1) they want to seek ethic changes, 2) some sites have responded to this 3) the ad pulls from ODNod, and 4) self-policing. That's not a lot and actually a fair summary of the most we really can talk about them. Most of the rest are all the antiGG statements, so the balance in the story is still in the predominance of antiGG sourcing. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It remains an inordinate amount of detail on the fluffy and dubious "ethics" material, compared with the harassment campaign that makes GakerGate notable. Also is say the self policing thing absolutely does not qualify for the lede, and barely qualifies for the article. Artw (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was a good re-write before the swift, unilateral reversion. It was more neutral and would have been a lot easier to work with going forward. But oh my, we can't downplay the stuff that vindicates the ideology of certain editors. The controversy's actual impact on the world? Fringe. Should be omitted. Proof that society is misogynist and needs heroes to save it? Oh, yes, very objective. Keep that at all costs. In fact, make it the whole article. Honestly, though. This is insane. For a brief period, the article had an easy to understand lead that contained everything you'd need to know about the subject, and all that lead required was a bit of readability cleaning and maybe some minor wording tweaks. Now we're back to this convoluted thing that nobody outside the debate finds valuable. And why? Just to play up the misogyny angle as much as possible when it's already extensively elaborated on within the body of the article? YellowSandals (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

In an environment where people will act for their ideology, aggressively in the assumption of their moral righteousness, civility is flattened to the earth by indignation. Look at what you're doing. For goodness sake. You're doing your best to draw clear divisions of good and evil, and you are bullying this article into submission with that mindset. You didn't like that lead because it didn't emphasize the evil you see of GamerGate? Well, for an unbiased article, isn't that point? Wikipedia doesn't decide who's evil and they don't make a point to convey that information to the readers. How do you intend to write a neutral article if your primary objective is to always emphasize the evil of the subject? YellowSandals (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

We get a "neutral" article by following the sources. And since the sources OVERWHELMINGLY cover gamergate in relation to the "evil", that's what our article will do too when it is "neutral". The continual whinging "but ethics!!!!" needs to be dropped until gamergaters find more "ethical" reporting like those at clickhole who actually see the "but ethics" as anything other other than a smokescreen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Please review all articles on WP about universally "evil" people/groups and tell me that they follow the overwhelming majority of sources that mark these as "evil" (Hint: they don't). This is why we have to be aware of WP:BIAS - we cannot treat the GG side as guilty before proven innocent, that is an impossible stance for WP to take. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

gamergate HAS been "proven guilty" - the only thing they are notable for is being related to viscous violent online trolling of women, as is well reported in all the mainstream media coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Only in the eyes of the press, not by any scientific evidence or a court of law or something else that is unequivocally firm evidence. That's the problem - we cannot take this attitude of the press, that's what BIAS is for. --MASEM (t)

you mean only in the eyes of the reliable sources, which is only what matters. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The claim that it is fact that GG is misogynyistic is not verifyable; just because nearly all the press have labeled it as such does not make it true. It is true that this is their opinion, but without any factual study that looks directly at the persons behind GG to determine their personality and motivations to be able to properly assess if the majority of GG is misogynistic or not, these remain claims based on observing patterns and the higher level of social media. Note that I'm not saying that this can be a wrong opinion, but there's absolutely no data to back it up, and until that happens, or something like a legal decision comes down on GG to say that it is misogynistic, we absolutely cannot speak in the Wikipedia voice that GG is misogynistic, only that the press condemns the movement believing it to be misogynistic. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You apparently need to leave this page and go get WP:V and WP:OR changed. This page is not exempt from basic policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What actual part of the policies are you referring to? Please quote. Halfhat (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You know, that part of the policies that says we base our content on what the reliable published sources say, not on our own bizarre claim that only when a court has convicted someone of misogyny are we allowed to state that there is misogyny. Our court, the reliable sources has in made and dispersed its judgment and the verdict is in. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no violations of V or OR, as long as we exactly what is there: the mainstream press believes GG is about misogyny. It is OR to say that, in a Wikipedia voice as a fact, that GG is about misogyny, which is what you and many other editors are trying to do. --MASEM (t) 01:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

such accusations require actual evidence. or strike them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not accusations. It's how we have to use sources. The press are expressing their opinion that the movement is misogynistic, not the factual evidence that it is. We work on "innocent until proven guilty". --MASEM (t) 04:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If editors have, as you say, made or advocated for edits that "say that, in a Wikipedia voice as a fact, that GG is about misogyny," then please point to those changes. Be specific. Use diffs. Otherwise, you're not discussing the content, but the contributors. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

At the present time, there is no specific edit I can pinpoint, but it's not the content (directly),it is the attitude that is being carried in this thread, and in the ArbCom responses that show several editors want to paint the proGG side as factually misogynistic when there is no evidence that it is. --MASEM (t) 05:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: if at the present time you do not have diffs to back up "which is what you and many other editors are trying to do" it would behoove you to strike the comment or apologize. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, one clear example is your comment above in this thread at 20:30, 29 October 2014. gamergate HAS been "proven guilty" - the only thing they are notable for is being related to viscous violent online trolling of women, as is well reported in all the mainstream media coverage.. That's pre-assigning guilt that we don't do for any other group that is considered evil or bad or whatever; we give them the neutral benefit of the doubt before delving into the harsh criticisms that the media gives it. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that you know as well as I know that gamergate HAS been proven guilty of misogyny by the mainstream sources - do we need to play them out again? The Guardian: The recent uproar – said to be over ethics in journalism but focused mostly on targeting outspoken women who aren’t journalists at all – is just the last, desperate gasp of misogynists facing an unwelcoming future." , The Telegraph "#GamerGate: the misogynist movement blighting the video games industry" , The IB Times Any lingering doubt over whether the Gamergate movement is dedicated to anything other than misogyny and intimidation was eliminated early Thursday when Felicia Day’s personal information was dumped online., Time: Misogynist Online Abuse Is Everyone’s Problem — Men Included , Huff Po: They are facing, as activist Melissa McEwan put it, terrorist misogyny." , Vox Angry misogyny is now the primary face of #GamerGate, The LA Times: "It's time to silence 'gamergate,' end the misogyny in gaming culture" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, but you've lost the plot. You're making a category error--we're not addressing claims of a scientific nature or claims regarding the law. We're writing an encyclopedia article about a harassment campaign. It's absolutely absurd to demand that statements about this subject be subjected to this arbitrary (and novel) threshold you're proposing. Protonk (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

We're writing an encyclopedia article about a harassment campaign. That is an immediately biased statement that we absolutely should not be taking at all if we are to remain absolutely neutral in the event. We are writing an article about a conflict on the internet from gamers questioning the ethics of journalism sites that includes the unfortunate element of a subset of the users engaging in a harassment campaign that has impacted the lives of several female developers and has been far and wide condemned by the mainstream media and has tainted the message that the bulk of the other users are trying to get across. That is the most neutral statement that is true to the sources. As soon as you start with "GG is a harassment campaign", you are directly attacking ~10,000 users that likely have not had any part, and in fact might condemn the harassment themselves. You are creating a degrading stereotype that WP does not speak with at any point. We (presently) cannot present proGG in any type of net positive light, but there is absolutely zero allowance to treat the entire effort negatively when there are reliable sources that are trying to give the proGG side a voice (eg the recent Slate article on GG Moderate). --MASEM (t) 05:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"That is an immediately biased statement that we absolutely should not be taking at all if we are to remain absolutely neutral in the event" OH COME OFF IT. You know as well as I do that the goal is to have neutral articles, not to search fruitlessly for neutral editors. I can't even process the remainder of this. I'm sorry to hear that 10,000 people are so guileless as to believe that GG is "really about ethics in games journalism", because they're carrying water for a harassment campaign. And your "neutral summary" is basically the public 'gater party line, so I'll pass on that, thanks. Protonk (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Also "You're making a category error--we're not addressing claims of a scientific nature or claims regarding the law. We're writing an encyclopedia article about a INSERT WHATEVER. It's absolutely absurd to demand that statements about this subject be subjected to this arbitrary (and novel) threshold you're proposing." It doesn't matter what's in the blank. The problem with your threshold for sourcing remains. Protonk (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking for neutral editors, I'm asking for editors if they are going to contributor to a clinically neutral discussion of Gamergate for Wikipedia, to edit in a neutral manner; to leave behind any bias they may have on their own when they make their edits. If you can't do that, and let personal feelings affect how you approach this, you should not be editing. I would quantify myself as slightly antiGG (some of what the GGs have asked for from the media seems questionable, and of course, the fact it took this long to organize to start speaking in a unified voice against the harassment stuff), but when I am looking to edit this, I am looking to treat all sides fairly, just as we do any other "hated" group or person on WP. We'll identify the strong criticism and condemnation of the group, but we do not start these articles with the a priori that they are "bad", even if all the primary sourcing out there does that. This also applies to proGG-sided editors, that they need to understand we cannot create a positive image for their group with the limited sourcing, or call out the press as conspiratorial, so that side, if they want to contribute, also must edit with a neutral tone, or otherwise should avoid editing. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

When I say GG is a harassment campaign it's personal feelings, but when you give me the GG party line it's the most neutral statement that's true to the sources. Got it. Protonk (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not giving you the party line. I'm saying what is a neutral statement based on the media: it is a movement that claims to be about ethics in journalism but marred by the use of harassment/intimidation tactics by a vocal minority that the press has condemned as misogynistic. That's not the proGG party line which would like absoltely nothing about harassment/misogyny to be part of it. Nor is it the antiGG party line that it is a misogynistic harassment campaign. It neutrally splits the difference, and that's how every editor should be thinking when editing this. --MASEM (t) 05:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem and YellowSandals refer to the Tone of the article, not the message. There is a big difference. As Masem says, articles on WP about universally "evil" people/groups have a neutral tone that is entirely unrelated to whether the sources regard them as "evil". If a (reliable) source writes that GamerGate is evil, we can cite that source and include that GamerGate is regarded as evil by such source, but we ourselves must report this in a neutral tone. And let me emphasize that. Neutral. Not in one direction ('GamerGate' is evil), nor in another direction ('GamerGate' is good). We must write with an impassionate tone. Omegastar (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the same concern I've raised. NPOV most certainly applies to tone here, even if this article will inevitably be citing from mainstream media sources that lean heavily anti-GG. All this said, the tone is *much* better than the seriously biased and propagandistic tone that characterized the article several days ago. I hope that the overall quality of this article continues to improve. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF is non-productive. Attempting to elevate an essay (WP:BIAS) above policy (WP:UNDUE) is likewise non-productive. aprock (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That really depends - OTHERSTUFF primarily refers to invoking "other crap exists" to justify a crappy article or crappy edit. That is indeed non-productive. However, pointing to good articles that manage to deal with controversial topics in a professional, dispassionate, and as far as possible, unbiased manner serve as positive examples of best practices that are indeed worth invoking. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If we can consider the revision piecemeal, IMO the most useful aspect was that it defined which is the "Gamergate" group and (at least implicitly) which is the "anti-Gamergate" group. The current version of the introduction mentions that supporters have targeted advertisers and that there is harassment related to the hashtag. The "sides", however, are not defined. There is no mention whether, for example, Ms Sarkeesian is being harassed because she is pro- or because she is anti-. I realize that these things can be gleaned from further down in the body, but it seems like this sort of general definition of terms should happen early. If we're using Gamergate to mean the event of the controversy rather than a particular advocacy, then the "Gamergate supporters and opponents" language later isn't consistent with that. TuxedoMonkey (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

A false dichotomy. There are lots of anonymous, pseudonymous, astroturfed social media accounts using "gamergate" each in their own way to grind their own axe. You cannot have "pro" and "anti" when everyone is using the term in their own way and their is no formal organization to issue a platform and the gamergaters apparently like that because there is also no culpability when viscous vocal elements go on harassment campaigns. The media has looked at the vague and contradictory "other sides" and found them to be either false or facile or not worthy of mention in comparison to the harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You are very right that there are more than two sides to this, so I don't think we should necessarily start tagging people with one or the other label. Let me just refer directly to Masem's version: "...with those supporting better disclosure of potential conflicts of interest rallying behind the Gamergate name." It gets a reader the sense that "Gamergate people are harassing Ms Sarkeesian" and not "Ms Sarkeesian is being harassed because she supports Gamergate" when they get to that portion. Presumably it was reverted because it states Gamergate's motivations to be about ethics. Maybe "...allegations about journalistic ethics were made under the Gamergate name and continued to clash with acts of harassment and misogyny." Alternately, I would be less excited about "Some Internet users, particularly on 4chan and Reddit, rallied under the Gamergate name and attacked Quinn" because it makes a strong implication that the tag showed up a couple weeks earlier than it did. TuxedoMonkey (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to support Masem in his attempt at brevity. I am coming out of wikislumber because the quality of this article is quite poor and it is obvious to any casual observer that very little attention to structure is being paid (not to mention the absurdity of semi'ing a talk page). Setting aside any accusations of bias, why is the lead nearly two pages long on a wide screen monitor and why does it warrant 3 enormous paragraphs? For what purpose do you include 28 citations in what is supposed to be an introduction? Why are you stating and restating quotes in excessive redundancy? Does anyone even understand proper composition of informative prose? I refuse to search 10+ pages of archive to see what insane rationale there is for this kind of nonsense. I came here to understand the controversy, but I could barely make it through half the article before giving up. I applaud Masem for a good start in a contentious battleground—and quite frankly I left Wikipedia because trying to get involved in similar article ownership issues left a bitter taste in my mouth—but this article needs much, much more: more brevity, more clinically neutral language, and more attention to proper structure and flow.--Dragon695 (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the constant intrusion of users trying to push a POV and demand that all of the various statements in the lead are contentious because they are not cited has led to the introduction being so long, exact, and cited. While it could be cut down, attempts to do so have been accused of favoring one side or the other, so everything must be covered as much as possible. I think.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a recipe for a mess of an article. At least admit we're left with a shit sandwich, rather than pretending that citation bombing the lede and making it 67 pages long is a good outcome. Protonk (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

1) Ryulong, you're in no position to point the finger at other users for POV pushing, and I think you know this. Referring to other users as "intrusion" implies article ownership, something that you've been called on before. If this article is to be edited productively to something resembling consensus, you need to stand down with that kind of rhetoric.

2) To my way of thinking, there is no need for an overly long lede, just one without inflammatory and biased language. That's something that can be quite succinct. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason the intro is so long is because Gamergate is an ongoing event with an ongoing impact on a number of places. It's currently wreaking financial destruction on a few periodicals, and the Colbert Report just brought Anita Sarkeesian on prime television to talk about her stance in the pleasant, satirical fashion Colbert is known for. Most logically, the lead would read as a brief summary of chronological events and the body of the article would expand on each event based on the weight of reporting on them. However, instead, many editors seem to view the Gamergate controversy as a battle of good versus evil and are doing their best to present it as such to Wikipedia's readers. Consequently, every time a new or old account drops in to ask about the bias or request some changes in tone or structure, they get the response, "No, we can't make a change. All the sources report this as a moral crusade and so must we."

This leads editors to ask for proof that all the sources are reporting on Gamergate as a moral crusade against misogyny, which in turn causes the lead to be filled with citations and quotes. This makes the lead messy and hard to work with because it's not clinical and the tone is one of moral indignation. YellowSandals (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Or in in short, the reason the lead is so messy is because too many editors are trying to use it as a preamble to justify a moral crusade, and as the controversy changes and new developments occur, so too must the rhetoric adapt. YellowSandals (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In short, GamerGate *is* a moral crusade against women in gaming, and reliable sources describe it as such. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

well, "moral" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)