Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Issue in the updated lead

In the current draft lead The hashtag and a variety of online discussion forums became the center of many waves of actions ranging from critiques to online and offline harassment to direct threats, now referred to as the Gamergate movement. The overwhelming majority of commentators have dismissed these claims as variously trivial, conspiracy theories, unrelated to ethics or outright false.

The first sentence is not true. We have no source that links any self-ascribed "gamergate movement" user or forum to any specific harassment attack (the sources that talk about the more recent harassment issues are very careful to not specifically blame the movement but note that these are likely tied to the movement), and to broadly state that as a lead fact is not proper. That said, it is important to stress that there is a broad opinion that the movement is used for harassment. I propose the following rewrite. (There's also removing of the peacock "overwhelming majority" for just "most".)

The hashtag and a variety of online discussion forums became the center of discussion of debates on video game journalism, and these users referred to themselves as the Gamergate movement. Most commentators have dismissed the otherwise-unorganized movement as a front for or enabling the continuing campaign of harassment and threats, and have rejected the movement's ethics claims as variously trivial, conspiracy theories, unrelated to ethics or outright false. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

We absolutely have sources which say they're responsible for harassment, the end. Here's The Christian Science Monitor from 20 January: Ms. Quinn was the first target of Gamergate, a movement that styles itself as a voice for ethics in video game journalism but which has come to be defined by its vicious anti-feminist harassment campaign. [1]. Or The Guardian from 3 December: Gamergate continued to suck in more people – some trying to reinvent its origins to make the campaign seem more credible, and some clinging to it as a way of expressing concerns about games journalism, seemingly without comprehending Gamergate’s roots in abuse and harassment. [2] Wired from 20 January: Game developer Zoe Quinn made national headlines last year as the first target of Gamergate, an online movement of angry videogame fans that has inspired widespread harassment, particularly against female games critics and professionals. [3]. It is not a matter of substantive dispute that the movement, such as it is, is responsible for harassment and is, indeed, rooted in that harassment. Not everyone in the movement is responsible, but the very issue with a "movement" is that collective responsibility attaches to uses and abuses of the movement's "good name." If you believe that Gamergate is a "movement," then it is very clear, based upon reliable sources, what that movement is about, what it stands for and what it has done. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Wording it the way it is now implicates everyone that calls themselves in the GG movement as an harasser and we cannot do that. That's prejudging. It's fine that the press wants to tie the movement to harassment or enabling harassment, that's a fact that has to be in the article and lead as I present, but we cannot make their leap of logic that the movement is all about harassment and stay neutral, when the movement never says this is their purpose. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not "prejudging," Masem. You can't have it both ways — you can't repeatedly ask for Gamergate to be called a "movement" and then have us deny the collective responsibility that is attached to a movement by the reliable sources commenting on the issue. We don't care what the movement says their purpose is — we care what reliable sources say they are about. Our articles are based on what reliable sources say, full stop. If all the reliable sources say Gamergate is about harassment... then yes, we will state that Gamergate is about harassment. This is a question of fact, not of point of view, and the reliable sources are effectively unanimous in their factual description. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not denying the responsibility of the movement and harassment. That's the "enabling" part of the second sentence of mine – the press has repeatedly made it clear that those that might not even do harassment are not helping their cause by not distancing themselves or changing their approach. But that doesn't make those people guilty of harassment. Further, the way the current sentence reads is implying that the movement set off to do harassment, which we have no idea if this is possibly true or not. --MASEM (t) 22:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, we do have an idea, because the reliable sources I have presented say so. You have presented no reliable sources which say otherwise. "The press" is not a "side" here, the press is the reliable sources which our articles are based upon, by foundational policy. If you disagree with the reliable sources I have presented, I ask that you present the reliable sources which say Gamergate is not responsible for harassment. Otherwise, it is very clear what the consensus of the available reliable sources is. Your version effectively denies that consensus, is directly refuted by the available sources and as such is not appropriate for this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

We have to present the GG movement in a legitimate light if we are staying neutral and impartial. That means we cannot use any assessment of the press that is not based on actual evidence from the GG side to define what GG is. That is like saying "Westboro BC was founded to be a hate mob". The origins of the movement are sketchy, there's no sourcing we can use to directly figure that out, but the people that call themselves the movement reject harassment as a tool, so we cannot say they were formed to engage in harassment. We can certainly express the intent the press has that they feel that GG's motives were about harassment and continue to be about it, but we can't write that as fact. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no, but your claim that "the people who call themselves the movement reject harassment as a tool" is both untrue and unsourced. As numerous reliable sources state, anyone who takes the flag "Gamergate" is part of the movement because of its lack of organization. It is indisputable based upon reliable sources that harassment has flowed from a wide array of people who call themselves Gamergate. Thus, your claim is falsified. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Source right here [4] "The key to reducing the movement’s size lies in the little known but surprisingly numerous species I call the Gamergate moderate (Gamergater moderabilus), which by my estimate constitutes well over half the movement. They are the people who make up Gamergate’s Harassment Patrol, which polices Twitter and has identified and reported some egregious harassers." So yes, there exists people in the GG movement that are fighting harassment, and thus not engaging in it. It is an attack statement to qualify them under that. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, no, it's not "an attack statement." You once again fail to get that the movement has been defined by its harassment as per the reliable sources, and at this point that assessment is widespread and overwhelming. A single opinion column cannot override that assessment. Once you choose to accept a collective view of Gamergate, you must accept the collective assessment of their activities. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference to say that the movement is better known/defined by their harassment (a fact I agree with), and to say they are purposely organized to engage in harassment. The former statement properly captures the fact that the movement may not be the ones doing the harassing, but because it is being done in the GG hashtag, they are getting the blame for it. That's completely right and has to be there. The latter is specific blaming them for harassment which we cannot assert, and is an attack statement. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're missing the very point, then. If you refuse to agree that Gamergate has collective responsibility as a "movement," then we cannot describe them as a "movement." Either they're a disorganized rabble for whom nobody is responsible for anyone else, in which case they aren't a "movement" at all, or they're a (loosely-)organized social movement which shares collective identity and responsibility under a shared banner. You're trying to have it both ways, and that's not the way the English language works. Jesse Singal in NY Magazine is on point: So what is Gamergate “really” about? I think this is the sort of question a philosopher of language would tear apart and scatter the remnants of to the wind, because it lacks any real referent. You guys refuse to appoint a leader or write up a platform or really do any of the things real-life, adult “movements” do. I’d argue that there isn’t really any such thing as Gamergate, because any given manifestation of it can be torn down as, again, No True Gamergate by anyone who disagrees with that manifestation or views it as an inconvenient blight from an optics standpoint. [5] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that, I'm saying this is what the movement considers themselves. We have to present their point of view legitimately without any bit of prejudgement from the press's side to be impartial, and then go with the counterarguments. I agree there are people in the GG movement that do not understand that if they want to be a movement they have to be responsible for what happens in the name of the movement, and their purposeful means of staying distance from it doesn't help. But that's an opinion. Even your quote above identifies itself as an opinion. Without lack of any evidence to stay that the whole GG movement is purposely there for harassing people, we have assume what they state as their motives as their claims without comment. We cannot write this article as an attack piece against them at all lacking clear solid evidence they are a whole group are purposely engaging in harassment. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No, we call it a movement because it looks like a movement, acts like a movement, and is described as a movement. That's the difference between that and the claims that the movement is "rooted" in harassment, especially when we know and have sources that note otherwise. The reliable sources describe Gamergate numerous ways, so yes, we will state those numerous ways with attribution, not treat opinion as fact. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I invite you to present said sources here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The ones we use in the article suffice for this specific point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a cop-out. Which sources state that harassment is not part of the activities Gamergate is responsible for? I've cited my sources above and will be happy to provide more upon request. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Who is arguing otherwise? I'm not, and Masem is not. The issue is one of attribution of specific motives and points, not of the broader issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course you're arguing otherwise — you're arguing to remove that direct statement from the lede of the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do not attribute beliefs or claims to me that I do not hold. Read Masem's replacement text closer to get a better idea as to what I'm arguing. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As long as we pick and choose sources, yes. It's a pretty substantive dispute as to the extent of the harassment in comparison to what the broader movement is, and Masem is correct that the direct language we're using is misleading at best. We must attribute the point to some and/or specific observers, not just relate it as assumed fact. NPOV demands it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The hashtag and a variety of online discussion forums became the center of many waves of actions ranging from critiques to online and offline harassment to direct threats, now referred to as the Gamergate movement is a fact. That harassment is a major part of Gamergate's activities — and by far the most notable activity — is not a matter of factual dispute among reliable sources. If you disagree, I invite you to present reliable sources which state otherwise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it's an opinion, regardless of the notability of the issue. The reliable sources are better described by Masem's language above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This statement is an attack statement against people that have done nothing in relationship to harassment (which we do have sources say exist, the GG moderate) That is completely unallowed per NPOV. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again, if you believe that Gamergate is a "movement," then you must accept that the "movement" has long ago been defined by harassment of women in video gaming. That is completely allowed per NPOV, because it is the indisputable consensus of available reliable sources, which our articles are based upon. You have presented a singular source from October, whereas there are multiple, stronger and more recent sources which state otherwise. You cannot simply state that "Gamergate was about discussion and debates of video game journalism" because that is a clear example of lying by omission — omitting what the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources say Gamergate is about NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

One can believe Gamergate is a movement (based on sources and evidence) and not agree that we should "define" it without attribution. Our articles are based on sources, yes. NPOV requires us to attribute those sources properly and not simply assume that the reportws opinions (especially when they conflict with evidence) are fact. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Building on this point, imaging if the New York Times came out tomorrow and printed some extremely contentious statement about a business without stating why or how but claiming it as fact, and that story got repeated in a number of sources. WP would carefully use that source as a claim, not a fact, despite being printed by the NYT, as without a clear chain of how they got their, the claim is dubious despite the reliability. We are enabled by policy to make that determination and use sources carefully (this was a conclusion of the bias RFC I had). That's what's happening here. There is no evidence or the like that these sources are using to assert that GG is a harassment campaign from the start (and we are aware that the evidence is not readily apparent here), and since that is a contentious claim, we can make sure it is treated only as a claim and not as a fact despite the reliability of the sources. Reliability does not mean infallible, and that's the problem with sources here. I'm not dismissing any of these claims as unusable but they must remain claims and opinions (just as the GG claims and opinions will remain claims and opinions), and cannot make the assumption they are "right". --MASEM (t) 23:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No, sorry, that's not supported by the facts of the case. That is an opinion that we cannot take as editors here. Let the press do that for us, fine, but not as neutral, impartial editors. We have to be aware that what the instigation of GG is pretty much unknown due to lack of sourcing and the conjunction of many events at the same time (a chicken-egg problem). What the press thinks it is is not the point we can take to edit this article. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You can present a source for your claim that it's "not supported by the facts of the case," right? Otherwise, you get a tag. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The Salon article above, to start. Plus, there's what is "reality" here. I've spent enough time trying to dig for sources for objectively talking about GG that I know that the bulk of what I read (mostly from KIA) is not about harassment at all, but ethics. That exists. We're stuck, however, with the "verifyability, not truth" paradox, and that information would be both OR and unverifyable obviously, but I know it's true. Take the Guardian article about the ArbCom decision. We know it is factually wrong, but to say why its wrong is OR and unverifiable. But because we know its wrong, we would not include it, or at least make sure its claims remained claims for our article. Same thing here. It's very easy to research what the GG side does, and it is tremendously clear the bulk do not engage in harassment. But again, we have a few RSes that explain there is antiharassment groups within GG, so you don't have to take my word on the nature of what I have to read. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The Slate article is an opinion column and dates from October, whereas the sources I have cited above are hard news stories published much more recently. There may have been, at one point, some debate about what Gamergate was about, but there is no longer any such debate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

One thing we need to work on getting better sourcing on is the root of the conflict. We have videos and blog posts going back years regarding ethical journalism, and Gamergate exploded those issues while also having proponents engage in harassment. We need more like this that help us connect those dots. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no controversy that gaming journalism has from its inception been essentially an advertising platform. No one really cares. Sexism and harassment of women goes back just as far and people DO care. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Pen, just because you haven't heard that anyone cares about the state of gaming journalism doesn't mean it isn't noteworthy for discussion in an article that involves gaming journalism as a subject of debate.

I agree that the article would benefit from a better historical look at how either side of Gamergate came into being and why the people supporting either side can't seem to understand each other. As far as I gather, it unfolds as thus:

1. Zoe Quinn makes "Depression Quest" and the game is criticized for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with gender at first.
2. Quinn is assumed to have issued a DMCA claim against a Youtube video that criticized her game. In response, this is when harassment begins in earnest. Still nothing to do with gender so far.
3. Gjoni's posts are discovered. People are led to believe Quinn used distasteful methods to achieve press coverage of her game. Still nothing about gender yet.
4. Zoe Quinn claims she is being harassed because she is a woman. Feminist supporters arrive. NOW it is about gender.
5. Punditry ensues. Gamergate supporters believe they are dealing with DMCA abuse and an unethical press. Gamergate opponents believe they are dealing with vindictive misogynists. Milo reinforces the pro position. Sarkeesian reinforces the anti position. The two sides segregate and fall into their own circles and begin spreading vicious rumors about each other.
6. Actual anti-feminists join the conflict, believing Gamergate is about beating back Feminism. Radical feminists join anti-gamergate in the belief that they are dealing with their ideological foes. The prophesies have fulfilled themselves and now much of the debate is about gender and sexism.
7. Harassment. Everyone gets harassed. Conspiracy theories, death threats, so on and so forth. Gamergate becomes enormous.

Does anyone feel like the above assessment doesn't rather cleanly explain a lot of this without taking a biased, accusatory tone? If you can bring yourself to look at it from the outside this way, you can see how there actually are radical feminists, misogynists, unethical behavior among the press, and every other detail being factually present. This stuff is all here – the two sides are not lying, they just lack perspective. YellowSandals (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no indication that the press "does not understand" gamergaters claimed positions. We have multiple sources that specifically review those claims and dismiss them . That gamergators do not understand the real world and how the real world views gamergators is a potential issue, but I think we cover that, too (or have at one time). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I wrote this proposed text: The Gamergate hashtag and a variety of online discussion forums became the center of many waves of actions ranging from critiques to online and offline harassment to direct threats, now referred to as the Gamergate movement. You will notice that I'm avoiding unifying the "many waves of actions" into some kind of cohesive whole here. Because of that, this text deliberately did not do what Masem worries that it does: "implicates everyone that calls themselves in the GG movement as an harasser," any more than coverage of the #BlackLivesMatter protests implicate everyone in the movement with burning police cars.

At the moment, "Gamergate movement" (as a two-word sequence) draws 139,000 hits on Google News. I think it's fair approximation of this public usage by reliable sources to say that it encompasses the variety of actions I referred to. Looking online, one can also find "Gamergate is a movement" said by proponents of GG (largely as an ethics-focused thing) and by opponents of GG. You can also find "Gamergate is not a movement" said by proponents ("it's a constellation of uncoordinated actions," or it's a hashtag") and opponents ("it's a campaign of harassment" or "it's hashtag"). (The latter two draw 10-16,000 hits on Google writ large.) There may not be consensus on whether GG is a movement. However, to do our job on clarity and being an encyclopedia, we must explain what this common phrase "Gamergate movement" actually refers to, when it is used to refer to something. (My edits were prompted by the fact that people on this talk page were unable to understand from the article what it meant to be "a Gamergate supporter," a phrase that is repeatedly used on the page.) On this, we can and must be clear by turning to reliable sources.--Carwil (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't wonder if maybe the problem is that the article so far has spent too much time focusing on who Gamergate is when the reality is that Gamergate means something a little different to everyone involved in it. For some it is about gender, for others it's about journalism. For the ones who find it's about journalism and nothing else, they actually don't like being associated with any of the gender aspects. It's so ideological that I think it's fair to say Gamergate is akin to writing about a religion. You might say, "Christianity is a religion based around actions ranging from helping the poor to burning innocent people alive," and you would be accurate, but it wouldn't be the sanest way of explaining it. What I'd like to see this article do is try less to explain what Gamergate is supposed to be about and instead explain how it exists or became this big.

Gamergate didn't really happen because of misogyny or because of a conspiracy among the press. I think that, most likely, when Zoe Quinn said she was being attacked because she's a girl, she really did believe that. She was getting a ludicrous amount of hate mail for things she may not have done, so she found an explanation and there was an ideological group waiting in the wings to support that conclusion, and here we are with Gamergate now a source of ideological controversy. It started off trivial enough to sweep under the rug with a modest statement by Kotaku. Why anyone's PR department didn't put a stop to things as they caught fire I do not know. YellowSandals (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not quite accurate. Many of our sources say that the harassment Quinn, Sarkeesian, and so on were receiving (even before GamerGate started) was misogynistic in character -- see eg. the Washington Post here, the Guardian here, or Sengal's in-depth analysis of it here; and all of them say that the reason these particular people were targeted was, at least in part, because they raised the ire of people eager to fight culture wars over gender (which some of these articles characterize as 'misogyny', but you get the idea.) And as both they and many other sources say, the initial conspiracy theories about Quinn were (paraphrased) that a feminist-friendly press had used its sinister influence to advance its views; in pushing that theory, the initial push against Quinn was absolutely about gender-politics. I mean, it's a complicated issue, but it's important to underline that the majority of reliable sources agree that gender politics was core to what was driving GamerGate right from the start. This is also easy to see this if you go back to the initial chatlogs and 4chan posts, where people would talk about how to use the "ethics aspect" as a tool advance their agenda, using "SJW language" or whatever to convince people that something vile and unethical had occurred in order to get them on their side -- we can't use those posts as sources directly, but fortunately, many reliable sources have gone over them and reported back, and we can use those. Obviously this doesn't mean that everyone involved at the start was driven by a deep-seated need to fight against what they saw as a feminist conspiracy, but the sources in the article are more than sufficient to support the argument that that was part of the driving force behind GamerGate all the way back when it was just the #Quinnspiracy. Of course I agree with you (as you said below) that it's tricky to ascribe motives and goals to a diffuse group like this; but one advantage journalists have, when it comes to GamerGate, is that the main discussion forums involved are generally public, so a journalist who wants to take the time to go over them and paraphrase what GamerGate is based on what they find there can actually do so (even tracing the controversy right back to its start.) And many of the journalists who did so returned with the conclusion that GamerGate's original targets were chosen because they were women or outspoken feminists (although as our article says, politics related to the gamer identity also played a major role.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I see lots of narrative here, but I'm not sure what the point is. YellowSandals, what about the modified lead is inaccurate or unsupported?

Masem raised alternate text way at the top of this discussion. It modifies my text to say …became the center of discussion of debates on video game journalism. To my mind, that was part of the "critiques" in the text, but those critiques also clearly include critiques of mainstream journalism, social justice movements, and scientific researchers, so I don't see how Masem's text is an imporvement. --Carwil (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying Masem's change is specifically better or worse since both options read similarly. I was suggesting maybe an alternative approach that doesn't try to explain up front what Gamergate is except an "online controversy". What I mean to imply is that it might be better to kind of explain the history and divergent viewpoints without really trying to say Gamergate is about any particular thing. A chronological blow-by-blow. This occurred, that occurred, he said this, she said that, and so on. That way the reader understands a picture of things from either angle and understands why there's a conflict. So far the article has struggled to achieve balance because the two sides want to say the movement is about ethics or the movement is about harassment, but we really just don't have concrete demographic data on any of it. We don't know how many are involved in harassment, the ethics, the anti-feminism, or what. For all we could know, the controversy involves a hundred dedicated supporters and a thousand dedicated detractors – the demographics involved make a difference to how you might explain Gamergate. Since we don't have that data, I feel like it might be wiser to avoid talking motives or demographics and instead explain the concrete history.

The source I found mentioned a lot of non-gender related criticism of Quinn prior to Gamergate, but Aquillion insists there's data showing gender-based criticism from early on. Since these are divergent accounts, we probably need to express that contradiction in perspective since it is most likely that either perspective is true depending on your social circle. The bulk of the article really will detail the harassment because that's so prevalent in the press, but in terms of explaining what Gamergate is, I think it might be better to explain where it diverges and how it's come to mean different things to different people. YellowSandals (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

How about someone suggest a rewritten intro, post is here and we discuss it?BerserkerBen (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Another potential lead issue

One word in the lead that raises an eyebrow is the "terrorism" bit. The USU threat was described by the sources as possible terrorism, no doubt (though "terrorism" is a word that gets thrown around a lot loosely to evoke empathy.) But this is the only case that I think we can document that way (that is, described by RSes as terrorism), and thus using one case to put that into the lead appears to be specifically evoke the word to drive empathy against the GG. The multiple harassment and death threats have to be summarized in the lede, but not a single one-off incident. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No, terroristic threats is not "thrown around lightly to evoke empathy". It is an accurate accounting of terroristic threats to gun down an auditorium full of people because the person issuing the threat does not want people to hear her ideas. Basic definition of terrorism.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: All articles state that specific threat was not done by or connected to Gamergate other than the target of it was Ms. Sarkeesian. Although she is connected to GG, not everything she does, nor all the threats she received before and after GG began are all connected to the GG controversy at the same level. There was another threat that occurred at the same time that did, however, connect to Gamergate. The other/secondary threat was not, to my recollection, called terrorist in nature by any source. Do you have a source that says otherwise? Ries42 (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

you are flat out wrong

Cough. USU officials and Sarkeesian on Wednesday revealed new details about the threats. After the mass shooting threat was sent to the school late Monday, a second threat arrived Tuesday. That one, USU spokesman Tim Vitale confirmed, claimed affiliation with the controversial and sometimes violent online video gamers' movement known as GamerGate. The content of the first threat is posted at the bottom of this article. No comment on Gamergate is made in the threat itself. This is the threat that is being called "terrorist" in nature. Ries42 (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure why you would think that people would say "Well the first letter that came in threatening a mass shooting is terrorism, but those second two that came in threatening mass shootings were not." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no indication in any reliable source that I've seen as to the content of the second or third threats. Whether they were terrorist in nature or just "death threats like Ms Sarkeesian" received prior to GG. I've looked. If you have a source that says otherwise, please share it. Ries42 (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sarkeesian said a threat to kill at USU "did claim affiliation with #gamergate" and many reliable sources have reported that detail. You're welcome to contact those publications to see how (if?) they confirmed the claim, but for our purposes here what matters is that reliable sources are reporting it. For that matter, reliable sources (really everyone covering the story) have also reported on the connection between the most publicized of those Utah threats and GamerGate, despite that specific threat lacking the hashtag. Emarkcd (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There was, as best as has been reported, exactly one threat that has been called "terrorism" by the press. We cannot say "terrorism attacks" since that's false, and compared to everything else, that is calling out one very specific instance in the lede, which is too fine a detail for that. And yes, post-9/11, the word "terrorism" is a weighted word that gets thrown around a lot on things that aren't really terrorism to evoke emotion. I am not saying that the USU incident wasn't called terrorism by sources, but again to stress – it was one isolated incident and still unsure if connected to the movement, so we should not be calling it out in the lead. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

one "isolated" incident ? it is that incident which brought the issue to the NYT. it is not tangential to the controversy, it is a major factor in its notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's still isolated relative everything else that at least is attributed to someone using the Gamergate hashtag. The shooting threat was only tied by the fact it was targetted at Sarkeesian who at that time was also a GG target, but threat in no way connected itself to GG. The secondary threats – which were not called terrorism by any source – had the GG mention to link them. As such , that bomb threat may not even be GG related, though it is still necessary to point out that at the end of the day, the use of threats of any nature is a highly criticized and condemned action. So it is completely improper to highlight one event that might not have been done by anyone using the GG hashtag as a GG threat in the lead. --MASEM (t) 04:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

So the lede would look like this if the questionable issues were removed:

The Gamergate controversy, centering on a debate about sexism in video game culture, came to public attention in August 2014 as a result of sexist and misogynistic attacks targeting a number of women in the video game industry, including game developers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu, cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian, and others. These attacks, which were often performed under the #gamergate hashtag or by people connected to it, included online harassment and death threats, and were frequently coordinated and promoted within subforums of virtual communities such as Reddit and 8chan.

Gamergate is widely viewed as a manifestation of a culture war that is resisting the diversification of gaming culture, the recognition of video games as an art form, social criticism of video game tropes, and the impact of these things on gamer social identity.

Some people involved in the controversy say that it is a movement concerned with ethical issues in video game journalism, but the majority of commentators have dismissed the concerns it has focused on as being trivial, conspiracy theories, or unrelated to ethics.

Removed "mainstream media" buzzword as well. I don't think its needed in the first place, and it definitely isn't necessary if overwhelming is removed. Ries42 (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Third para I'd move to second, and in that , add something about how the press see the movement is seen as a front and/or enabling a campaign of harassment. (That the press sees it like that, that's factually true). --MASEM (t) 18:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I can agree with that. Perhaps separate the "but" comment as well, to show like this:

The Gamergate controversy, centering on a debate about sexism in video game culture, came to public attention in August 2014 as a result of sexist and misogynistic attacks targeting a number of women in the video game industry, including game developers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu, cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian, and others. These attacks, which were often performed under the #gamergate hashtag or by people connected to it, included online harassment and death threats, and were frequently coordinated and promoted within subforums of virtual communities such as Reddit and 8chan.

Some people involved in the controversy say that it is a movement concerned with ethical issues in video game journalism. However, the movement has been denounced by the majority of commentators because it is viewed as enabling the harassment campaign and commentators dismiss their stated concerns as being trivial, conspiracy theories, or unrelated to ethics.

Gamergate is widely viewed as a manifestation of a culture war that is resisting the diversification of gaming culture, the recognition of video games as an art form, social criticism of video game tropes, and the impact of these things on gamer social identity.

Ries42 (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Wordsmithing: However, the seemingly-unorganized movement has been denounced by most commentators and viewed as enabling the harassment campaign, with the movement's stated concerns considered trivial, conspiracy theories, or unrelated to ethics. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. I do have an issue with the first sentence, as it seems to have been wordsmithed at some point. I.e. Some people involved in the controversy say that it is a movement... When it was originally Some people within the Gamergate movement say they are concerned... I think this was the result of the whole "fighting" to call it a movement issue. Would you be OK with just reverting it back to

Some people within the Gamergate movement say they are concerned with ethical issues in video game journalism. However, the seemingly-unorganized movement has been denounced by most commentators and viewed as enabling the harassment, with the movement's stated concerns considered trivial, conspiracy theories, or unrelated to ethics.

Ries42 (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

How about A self-described Gamergate movement say they are concerned.... "Some people" begs, who they are, they just seem to be out of nowhere. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Gold. Run with it IMO. Ries42 (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Just accepted that in Pending Changes, though I do prefer the original ordering of paragraphs. The Land (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel like the new order is much better because it goes into the two important points first. A) History, B) The Movement that formed, C) The overarching themes. The old order doesn't make sense because it goes A) History, B) Overarching themes, then C) The movement. Its difficult to discuss themes until everything is presented. Ries42 (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I find it difficult to make sense of the movement without understanding the themes, and suspect someone reading the article "cold" would feel likewise. The Land (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The themes (eg the culture war stuff) are assessments that have been made in the longer-term about why we got to this state in terms of GG (that is, it is third-parties making those assessments for the most part). As such, it logically follows in both timing and narrative. If it was the case that GG came out claiming they were fighting a culture war, that would be different, but we'd be writing other things differently too. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

To add on to Masem, your opservation (The Land) actually makes the new order better because it avoids a possible attempt to lead a POV. The themes are supposed to be overarching to the whole of the controversy, not directly related to the movement. By saying it like that, it almost sounds like its injecting a POV that the themes are directly related to the movement itself. A point that I know myself and several editors have been careful to avoid because while there are sources that claim that, there are others that do not (see Auerbach's Slate piece for an in-depth discussion of the "movement"). That isn't to say that some or all of the movement may not encompass some or all of the themes, but it seems to be, *ahem* an attempt to lead someone into a specific mindset instead of attempting to keep it as neutral as possible to introduce the "themes" before introducing all the relevent "players" so to speak. Ries42 (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that "Some people involved in the controversy say that it is a movement concerned with..." is best; there clearly isn't enough unanimity among the sources to call it a cohesive movement in the article text, so that's something better attributed to the views of specific people. --Aquillion (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

While the school shooting threat is the most notable act of terrorism it is not the only. There have been countless threats meant to intimidate, the motive is political, and 'non-combatants' (like family and friends who get doxxed, police who are disrupted by swatting/false reports) are intentionally targeted. Also, most of the reputable coverage of the Utah school shooting terrorist threats (plural) confirm GamerGate's targets have received many similar threats. (Redacted) have (Redacted) and reported on the ongoing threats more broadly as (Redacted), not limited to just the specific USU example. Emarkcd (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Are those reliable sources? Otherwise I would recommend you to immediately remove them as they thus irrelevant and violate WP:BLP. Avono (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of PeterTheFourth's revert of an edit by DHeyward

Hi! I reverted your reversion of an edit by TheRedPenOfDoom. You stated that you believed his edit was 'misleading' (which I don't see as relevant because it's a direct quote from a news article which supports this quote) and 'out of historical context', which doesn't necessarily make sense for the removal of a quote which is commenting on a current day situation. If you'd like to explain your reversion here, I'd be fine letting it go through, but as it is it doesn't seem like you're removing content for a proper reason. Let me know! PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I already commented above yours. I wish you had read the talk page before reverting. --DHeyward (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's the context "Being a sports fan can be tough for women, but I think it's a generational thing," Sprague said. "Games are different -- they've always been geared more toward men. So if women say, 'We'd like to see fewer women in bikinis shooting things,' that's going at the core.". Women as fans are more accepted. Women don't compete with men in the majority of sports. For pro-sports, at least in the U.S., tropes like cheerleaders are accepted even as the role of women have evolved as a fans. What hasn't evolved is coaching and journalism. Sports journalists and game developers are much more comparable with respect to how they are received (i.e. women in locker rooms, women in play-by-play roles, women journalists that aren't worried about someone taking photos of them in their hotel room). All of those are recent sports stories regarding women. There are no stories or controversy about why women aren't in the NBA, MLB or NFL. That makes the pull quote out of context. --DHeyward (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I do agree that I think the quote is really not adding anything new beyond yet another voice to pile onto misogyny criticism. She's a person not affected or directly connected to any of the events here, so it's just a random commentator tossing their hat into the ring. (I do note that the quote needed context becuase without attaching that she was speaking of GG, it seemed to be directed to the industy's problems, not GG) --MASEM (t) 04:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is titled 'Why GamerGate Is Important'. I'm having trouble seeing how it's not relevant to gamergate, or how its inclusion is 'out of context'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The quote helps place the games misogyny in context of other aspects of the world, in this case the sports world which is another milieu which is a comparable male dominated entertainment industry. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

While that's understandable, as we have no idea how or what she's implying in talking about the misogyny in the sports world (is it due to the fans of sports, or the male-dominated nature of it?) I'm not 100% sure it still fits. On an article like Sexism in video games, it would have a better fit (as while the blog is certainly based off GG events, it seems to speak to the larger problems the vg industry has had, highlighted by GG). --MASEM (t) 15:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

When it introduces the line, the context seems to pretty clearly be that the shift towards female voices in games and backdraft from certain sectors parallels similar events that sports already went through. It ends with a quote about not wanting to say which is worse because "they're both bad", so I don't think TRPoD's version hit the nail on the head -- I think a better phrasing, more to the point, would be "In her blog on ESPN, Jane McManus noted that the harassment women face in the gaming industry and culture parallels that they face in sports, and quoted Yardbarker online editor Sarah Sprague as saying 'Sports already went through this a long time ago.'" Or something less clunky -- basically, that the article seems to be saying it's an echo of the sports shift.192.249.47.186 (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Back to cleaning up the article?

Now that the worst abusers have been topic and site banned, can we get back to cleaning up and rewriting the article? I tried before only to have one of them harass and maliciously try to cause an edit war with me. This article is currently one of the most embarrassing articles on English Wikipedia. For comparison, the Spanish article on the subject is significantly more neutral, especially in the intro -- I would propose we start with a translation of that and go from there.

Gamergate has absolutely nothing to do with supposed sexism or misogyny in gaming despite the narrative the abusers who were banned were pushing, and it's time we start cleaning this article of it's non-neutral (and not-based in reality) POV. KiTA (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to propose the changes you'd like to make, and their supporting sources. There does seem to be a fairly strong consensus about much of the current article, though, so starting from a position of "this article is based on a POV pushed by a bunch of people who've been banned" is likely not a productive place to start. The Land (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Lets start with the fact that the article lede claims that this consumer movement is about "sexism in video game culture." This is blatantly not true, as defined by the actual people who participate in GamerGate -- for example, the primer posted on the gamergate wiki [redacted possible blp concern], which is notable as a primary / first hand source. For more traditionally published sources, here's noted columnist Erik Kain contributing to Forbes about it. Here's another by award winning Russian American journalist Cathy Young talking about how the controversy is much more nuanced. (As a bonus, she covers several points that are non-neutrally taken as "fact" in this article, such as the scandals relating to Zoe Quinn.) Here's another article by Ricky Morris at Digitimes talking about it. It is clear that the people that participate in GamerGate, as well as a non-trivial amount of sources, consider the controversy a consumer movement about ethical practices in gaming journalism, and the article's basis should reflect that fact. If we can start with that as a basis of the article, most of my criticisms of the article would vanish -- although I still maintain that the use of certain publications as sources, when they are embroiled in this very controversy, is inappropriate (Polygon, for example).

A more neutral lede would start along the lines of "GamerGate is a consumer revolt focused on perceived media bias, nepotism, and lack of journalistic ethics in the Gaming Press. Some people posting under the GamerGate hashtag have been criticized for perceived sexist and misogynistic comments, including harassment and threats of violence."

T hat last line there is how criticism is brought up in the Feminism article lede. I still maintain that a good starting point and a neutral lede is available over on the Spanish language wikipedia article for GamerGate, and highly recommend it as good reading. KiTA (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The lede has been an issue, but we do need to reflect what the sourcing says a little more than that as well. Part of the problem is the title of the article, which focuses on the controversy when it really should focus on the overall movement. Your lede is a good start, and you have some good supporting sources, but we might want to try and expand on it a bit more before making a firm proposal. I do agree that "sexism in video game culture" is really not an issue of Gamergate, but perhaps of Gamergate's opponents. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but Gamergate does not have "absolutely nothing" to do with sexism and misogyny in gaming. The vast majority of criticism of Gamergate comes from a sexism and misogyny angle. Actions like funding TFYC and founding notyourshield, were attempts by Gamergaters to deal with concerns that they were misogynistic. Even if you do believe ethics concerns deserve a place in the first paragraph of the lead (which I think is fair enough, seems nonsensical to knock Gamergate down without even explaining what it claims to be), we cant remove all mentions of sexism or misogyny. Bosstopher (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of GamerGate, yes. But that is not how the article is written. The article is written as if GamerGate is all about Sexism and Misogyny, with ethics being some form of shield to justify that. That is my concern, and that was the wonkery that the banned editors were enforcing upon the subject. The article should talk about the Journalistic ethical concerns first, the supposed sexism and misogynistic criticisms second, and the controversial figures such as Zoe Quinn last (if at all). KiTA (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is written that way because that is what the sources say. The sources look at the "but ethics" see nothing worth writing about. They look at the sexism and harassment and go "this is important" . We dont undue the analysis by the reliable sources and give first credence to something they dismiss.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Analysis? Possibly, although a quick read of a random sampling of the current citations reveals that many of these citations are actually opinion, not factual analysis, which is against WP:ASSERT and WP:NPOV.

But more specifically, I'm going to quote NPOV Principle 2 -- "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." If there are reliable sources that conflict with other reliable sources, it counts as opinion, not fact, and thus cannot be asserted as fact. That alone requires huge swaths of editing to this article to fix NPOV since there are two diametrically opposed sides to this controversy, both with sources that back them up -- one side claiming it's about Ethics with "social justice warriors" and other demagogues trolling and trying to make it all about them, another claiming it's about social justice with supposedly non-diverse gamers reacting to changing dynamics.

Since a major part of the NPOV problems that the banned editors brought to this article was purging citations they disagreed with, this is a problem that will fix itself as alternative viewpoint sources are reintroduced. KiTA (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence anywhere that there is a "problem" with the content. The last community RfC in fact identified no major POV issues. The people on the arbcom "naughty list" are not there because of content issues, it is from a perception of overreacting to swarms of SPAs attempting to violate POV issues and coordinated offsite harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That's an underhanded way of saying the RfC identified minor POV issues. They also said we should include "less reliable sources", but as you point out when convenient, an RfC is not binding. Rhoark (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

All articles, even Featured Articles, have minor POV issues – community editing, by non-experts, using the sources available is not going to be perfect.

If you feel it would be beneficial to the encyclopedia to call another RfC on the existence of POV issues or the greater use of less reliable sources, that would be your choice. If you do, I would encourage you to carefully craft with others the wording of the RfC to ensure that such a process is an actual value-add use of community time and resources and not a clusterfuck that doesnt help settle any actual determination of the greater community consensus on the actual contested issues. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Be careful with this, though. Using opinion pieces is not forbidden, and much of this entire conflict is about perception and opinion, so the use of sources that discuss it reliably is not inappropriate. We do have a weight problem, and we do have a problem with the tone and point of view of the article, but jumping to this conclusion as you have here is as dangerous as the activities that got the article into this state to begin with. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Except we have sources that also cover both. No one is arguing that we do not talk about the sexism and harassment, but instead are rightfully arguing about the weight and structure of the article, which has been a continued problem exerbated by the bad behavior. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

To be fair KiTA seems to be arguing for that to a large extent, with his claims that GamerGate has nothing to do with sexism and that Zoe Quinn should possibly not be mentioned in the article. I really dont get how you can argue that. Gamergate started with Zoe Quinn, has been strongly opposed by Zoe Quinn, and almost all discussions about Gamergate (especially in the reliable sources) invariably mention Quinn. You cant write about Gamergate without writing about Quinn.Bosstopher (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it absolutely did not start with Zoe Quinn. [BLP redacted] That was the major concern, combined with the "Gamers are Dead" / GameJournalPros collusion scandal, that sparked GamerGate. Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, and Anita Sarkeesian ultimately have little to do with GamerGate outside of their attempts to subvert the discussion to their own ends as noted demagogues. KiTA (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If KiTA is saying no coverage of the Quinn and harassment debacles, I'm obviously opposed to it. Gamergate as a "movement," as a "controversy," has a history beyond Quinn and harassment that has been exised for reasons I don't care to speculate on anymore, and that we have an opportunity to solve the real NPOV issues in the article is one we should be embracing without ignoring other aspects as you note. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"Gamergate has absolutely nothing to do with supposed sexism or misogyny in gaming." But the vast majority of reliable sources cited in this article disagree with that statement. Sookenon (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of opinions cited in this article, which by definition are not appropriate sources. In addition, there was a general purging of sources by previous editors that slanted the article, a NPOV violation. KiTA (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Irregardless of the Arbcom case, what the article has been, while off in tone and approach, still falls very much appropriately into what WP polices limit us to. The sourcing is moistly within policy requirements, and poor sourcing for a highly contentious topic have been removed. This is the challenge created by both the GG situation (where there is very little coverage of the proGG side), and our policies on requiring high quality sources. The "verifyability, not truth" paradox. There is no way we can invert the approach of this article with sources given to make it "friendly" to GG because nearly no source does. But what we can do it watch for opinion stated as fact and the hyperbole the press has used. The article will, at the end of the day, have a large amount of negative comments related to GG, but we can be better to give what legitimate voice we can to the proGG side. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This response is aimed at the people who will read Masem's comment and immediately seek to make a case of 'undue weight'. You have an article about a controversy... and many seem intent to have no mention of the other side. This article is meant to be a summation of events between two forces, so providing the other side comes part and parcel with that. This goes back to something I have been saying a bit of. This article should ether be split into two, or renamed. Since people seem intent to try to write it like it is about the GamerGate MOVEMENT and not the GamerGate CONTROVERSY. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that might just be the way to go. GamerGate the Movement, and "Criticism of Sexism and Misogyny in Gaming." The more I think of your suggestion, the more I think it's a great idea. KiTA (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I know it will end up biased against GG ether way, because the RS's are biased against GG. I have no illusions that this will magically 'make things better'. It WOULD remove a lot of headaches for everyone involved. Since "GamerGate Controversy" is right now being used as an article for two separate things, leading to a sub-par article. Having the movement portion and the controversy portion separated would allow a more narrow view on both, leaving less room for vague interpretations, and helping to make better, more concise, less battleground-y articles. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Are there enough articles specifically about the movement itself to meet our notability guidelines? Personally, I doubt it, which is why we have an article about the controversy. You are correct, though, that if we were to round up enough articles to support an article about the movement itself, it would still reflect the movement as being primarily about sexism and misogyny, as reliable sources overwhelmingly state. Woodroar (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the archives a bit, and "Gamergate movement" is actually more popular as a term than "controversy" at this point. I planned on introducing a move request sooner rather than later. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather see a rename for this one and a new article for movement. Start fresh. Maybe use the Spanish language Gamergate article as a basis -- again, it's very well written. KiTA (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Neither of those things will be happening. A rename is possible, but two articles probably won't happen at this point and using the Spanish is simply not applicable. This is a much more detailed and better article even with its faults. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if we could show the movement is notable on its own from the controversy that the movement has created (either directly or indirectly), separating the topics is not a good idea – the two ideas (even if separate) are still too interrelated to discuss them in separate articles. Much of the controversy tied to the GG the movement is a result of what has happened with harassment and the like even if this was not GG's goal from the start – the movement has been blamed for it, and we cannot avoid that. We can make the GG movement side with more clarity and there are a few more reasonable sources to be added, but having thought long on how the organization of this article is, I strongly recognize not to try to think about these as separate articles, but just a manner of seeing how to better press GG the movement (which is something I have done per the re-org at the draft version). And no, the Spanish article translation won't work here. Each wiki has different policies , and we at en.wiki have much more stricter rules on sourcing. With the sources given we cannot flip the article around like that. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate has absolutely everything to do with actual sexism and misogyny, as supported by reliable sources. I certainly hope that project policy holds in the future, as it has held so far. (And in case you're wondering, topic bans are not enacted until the case is closed). Tarc (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

We should probably be super cautious about including material from the Spanish version of the article; I noticed it directly links "the Zoe post" in multiple places, which obviously violates WP:BLP. I can't speak Spanish so I have no specific commentary on the actual content there, but that's a pretty bright red flag. I have also heard scuttlebutt elsewhere that the Spanish page has been an operational target of the gamergate people themselves? The Spanish language article's talk page is very sparse, and I think one of the only posts there is complaining about a lot of anonymous IP vandalism dropping google-translated material into the article. As I said though; I can't speak spanish, so all I've got is google translate. Sappow (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've just had a reversion on material which did nothing other than expand on information provided by an already-accepted source. Indeed, I didn't even need to change the reference, since it's the same article from the same author (Forbes, Kain). Rather than crop anything out, I added more material to improve context and reduce POV issues... so I'm not at all sure why it was revised with an "unsourced" statement.Calbeck (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your edit, sourced to a Forbes contributor blog, was inappropriately speculative about who issued a DMCA request. The forbes blog was equally speculative, but Forbes apparently believes that unverified tumblr blogs are reliable sources about who is submitting sworn documents. The bar for BLP issues like that is higher. Hipocrite (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Except the Forbes blog, which is accepted as reliable elsewhere in the same article for various of its ruminations, directly cites its own source, which is the screen capture of official YouTube statements both identifying the DMCA'er and also that the DMCA request was invalid. Your sole argument that the source is invalid is that the secondary source cites it from a blog (whether tumblr or not is ultimately irrelevant). This would be of import if "the author and the publisher are the same" (this being the WP definition of Self-Published). In this instance, the author is YouTube and the publisher is the blogger, eliminating any Self-Published argument. Neither does an examination of Questionable Sources reveal a description to cover this material. Nor does WP:BLP apply, as this material is neither unsourced or poorly sourced, YouTube itself being the author and speaking to its own policies on DMCA takedowns. "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source".Calbeck (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if accusing someone of "offensive abuse" of the legal system with no evidence (not even the source you give argues that) is really the sort of thing that reduces POV issues... Bosstopher (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The source in question, YouTube, states that the person in question filed the claim and that it was invalid. I positioned this as "offensive" compared to the "defensive" act of censorship. Taking both specific terms out would seem to resolve the issue.Calbeck (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Youtube? I thought Kain was your source? Youtube is not a reliable source.Bosstopher (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

To be clear here. Forbes contributor blogs WP:NEWSBLOG and are not regularly fact checked by Forbes. They cannot be used for any contentions BLP content. There is a RSN discussion about this for the interested. — Strongjam (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, such a blog cannot be used as a Reliable Source, period, according to WP:RS. "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." If the blog is acceptable to this article as a reliable source in general, then its citation of primary source documentation which is neither Questionable nor Self-Published seems not to be in issue.Calbeck (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: in clarification, apparently such newsblogs are acceptable if the blog is "subject" to control, whether or not the news organization in question actually fact-checks them at at all.Calbeck (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The source of the DMCA request could be named if we say it was "alleged to be Zoe Quinn" by the sources. The screen cap of the youtube notice is not a proof as it may very well be Photoshopped, but for my part there is no doubt that it is correct, and I don't think people who argue against naming her are doing so because they don't believe she was the one. I strongly agree that we should treat anyone as innocent until proven, beyond reasonable doubt, guilty when it comes to criminal conduct. Citing a reasonable and likely allegation, however should be permissible, especially if there is a Reliable source that claims it. 78.174.201.176 (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no reliable sources that claims it. Woodroar (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Forbes, Kain source seems to claim just that, and it is already listed in the article. If yoou deem it to be unreliable, I suggest it to be removed, if not, my original argument stands. 78.174.201.176 (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Forbes source is being used to give Kain's personal and general thoughts about the controversy, which is consistent with WP:BLPSPS. We cannot use that source to make BLP claims. Woodroar (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

To say nothing of the fact that Kain's mention of the DMCA request is clearly speculative, and is basically a five-word blurb apparently based on MundaneMatt's speculation. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The whole DMCA bit seems WP:UNDUE to me. I've only found two sources that talk about it, Vox and Kain, both written very early into the controversy. None of our more retrospective sources seem to give any weight to the incident. — Strongjam (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If you look closely to the article where this source is being cited, you can see that it's not used to give Kain's personal thoughts, especially in the subtitle "Gamergate Hashtag." The same source is cited several times without any mention to Kain, and to justify sentences like "Such incidents led to a Streisand effect that brought more attention to Gjoni's accusations." This is clearly a claim by Kain, and it was permitted. Why not permit something like "One YouTube commentator had a video critical of Quinn removed following a DMCA takedown request, allegedly requested by Zoe Quinn"(Wording can be better of course.) As I understand it, this allegation is one of the starting points of the backlash against Quinn, and the subsequent harassment. If we are to tell the Pro GG side of the story as well as we can, this piece of information seems like a good place to start. 78.174.201.176 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Because context matters for source reliability, and to allege that a particular person sent the notice requires a much stronger source as it's about a living person. — Strongjam (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Not to be persistent, but I have one more contest, allegations about living people are being voiced in other articles like "Bill Cosby". He is a living person as far as I know, and accused of raping some number of women, and there is, justifiably, a subtitle devoted to those allegations. But they are no more than allegations, despite having insane amount of media coverage there is no evidence brought to him, much less proven. As for "context matters", I agree and despite the lack of additional reliable sources to the claim, it is reasonable to assume it is most likely the truth. Moreover, whether the allegation is true or false, it is a cornerstone to this controversy, at least in the eyes of Pro GG people. Which makes the allegation itself, relevant to the controversy. 78.174.201.176 (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The difference is the quality of the sources. A single Forbes contributor blog is simply not enough to put an allegation against a living person into Wikipedia. No matter how important some people may think it is. In the case of Mr. Cosby the allegations have been printed in many more, and higher quality sources. — Strongjam (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not intimately familiar with the Bill Cosby article, but I suspect that the article correctly lists the rape allegations as allegations, and I know for a fact (having read some of them) that reports of those allegations are widely available in reliable sources. That's simply not the case here; we have (so far as I can tell) one blog post that mentions it in a speculative fashion, linking to another person posting speculative claims. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Then we should be able to call them allegations here, too. Andnandnandn (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, when those allegations are "widely available in reliable sources." Parabolist (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Issue on wording

I have an issue with wording shown by this diff. I think it should be changed to "commentators say" per WP:NOPV, what i want to know is if we have enough sources to justify the claim? --RetΔrtist (разговор) 01:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If you could expand how you believe this somehow violates NPOV, I'd appreciate it, because as it stands, I have no idea why you'd think that it isn't justifiably sourced. Parabolist (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree there's no issue here. The harassment that has been reported has been decidely towards women. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

At some point (which I believe we've reached with the reliable sources) we are no longer required to state that 'commentators say' because the reliable sources are of such breadth that it is no longer remotely controversial. For example, we don't start our article on the September 11 attacks with 'Commentators say the September 11 attacks were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda...' In this vein, we are not required to label everything (especially not such easily sourced things as the majority of gamergate targets being women) in the article with 'commentators say'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree--RetΔrtist (разговор) 03:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

lede summary

"These attacks, mainly performed under the #gamergate hashtag and sometimes coordinated in forums on Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan, included online harassment, revealing of private information, and death threats, including a threat of a mass shooting at a public speaking event. Many observers describe this set of critiques and actions, and the people who engage in them, as a leaderless, amorphous Gamergate movement."

This makes no sense. What "critiques and actions" is the sentence referring to? The attacks and harassment?192.249.47.186 (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Good catch. With something that gets tinkered as much as the lede does, weird artifacts of older structure can slip through. I took a shot at trying to duplicate it to make more sense.Parabolist (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

1RR

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

---

In accordance with the newly authorised discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBGG, this article is subject to a one-revert restriction. Any editor who makes more than one revert in any 24-hour period (with exceptions for vandalism and BLP violations) may be blocked without further warning. I have added an editnotice to that effect to the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Question. Does the 1RR count for anyone declining an edit in pending changes? GamerPro64 02:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. As reviewers we should accept anything as long as it's not vandalism or BLP violation (a mistake I have made and won't repeat BTW.) If we want to revert something that isn't one of those two things we should accept it then revert so that everyone can see what we did. — Strongjam (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The revert rule doesn't apply to reverting obvious vandalism, which should be the context of most such refusals. Rhoark (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

And of course, if you're in doubt, you can always drop an protected-edit request to catch the eye of admin. --MASEM (t) 04:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't this remedy make the arbitration decision of editors subjected to a 1RR restriction moot? hy would you put everyone on the same footing as those sanctioned for edit warring? --DHeyward (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Weren't they subject to 1RR for all articles? Silverseren^C 03:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussing other editors on article talk pages is inappropriate per WP:TPNO, WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Instead, WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE should be followed. Dreadstar ☥ 07:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This isn't a battlefield. You shouldn't be worrying about being put on 'the same footing' as others- you're not fighting a war, you're working in a collaborative environment, and I advise you to remember such. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC) No, but there are revert warriors that ignore discussion and revert with a template never to be heard from again. I'd be fine letting it go, but as it is it doesn't seem like they're removing content for a proper reason. Let me know! --DHeyward (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Do at least pretend to be polite, DHeyward. If you believe I've done ill, take it up with the Arbitration Committee- otherwise, picking a fight is just poor behaviour. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Info from former reddit mod regarding alleged censorship and collusion?

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

---

Sorry if this has been brought up before, but can [redated BLP problem links] be mentioned in the article? Seeing as how censorship and collusion is kinda central to the movement, and this provides evidence of that.

Or is this deemed unreliable due to not being mentioned in any news articles? If that is the case, is there any further information that would allow this information to be deemed reliable? Like proof that the individual in question was a mod? Jabberwock xeno (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If we have a reliable source which talks about these stories, they're valid for addition. I'd welcome any attempt to get a reliable source about it. Best of luck. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

We cannot use them at all because they have BLP violating material towards specific people. We cannot use material that accuses named living persons unless this is well-established/described in high quality reliable sources per WP:BLP policy. --MASEM (t) 08:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that a source has BLP information does not restrict us from using it in ways that do not repeat the BLP information in the article. It especially does not prohibit sharing a link on a talk page for the purpose of determining suitability. A reddit moderator discussing the subreddit under their control may be permissible as a WP:SELFSOURCE. To know for sure, we'd have to see what the link is. Rhoark (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It can't be used if it involves claims about third parties (which it does.) Even if it didn't, it would be WP:UNDUE. And ignoring all that, there is no way we could cover this without mentioning claims about 3rd parties since the whole point of the post is claims about other people. — Strongjam (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me if this is irrelevant, but the link in question doesn't name people specifically, it gives aliases and psuedoynms, Or does that not matter in regards to BLP? Jabberwock xeno (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources for anything other than the opinions of the writer of the blog. The proposed source is a blog. Thus, the proposed source is not a reliable source for anything but the writers opinion. Why is the writers opinion notable enough for inclusion? Hipocrite (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be a Reddit moderator's report on internal Reddit drama, which isn't even mentioned in the article. Shii (tock) 17:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

More or less. It was the former moderator claiming that zoe or other indivuals were colluding with other reddit moderators to censor disscusion on the site about gamergate. I'd say that is information notable enough to be listed, but I figured that due to the information being in a blog and having not been reported on elsewhere that it probably wouldn't be able to be included, which is a shame. Jabberwock xeno (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

New section on arbitration ruling

Should we include a section on the arbitration ruling that has begun to enter the mainstream media? Such as here, here, here, here, or here? Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 16:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Of that list, only two of them are reliable sources (The Guardian and The Verge). Of those two, The Verge might be reasonable for this, but The Guardian article, as noted in a few sections above, have numerous factual errors that will preclude it from being used here. The Verge article appears to be suffering from similar, but not equal, problems. Still recommend waiting for now to see if anyone picks this up of note without running with the ravings of a blog post as its source. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure The Verge article would be a great choice either. The wiki article already cites 9 articles by The Verge(and also 9 by The Guardian). Can the case be made that one publication is gaining too much weight? I didn't find that in WP:UNDUE but it may lead to WP:OVERSITE instead. This may be an unrelated problem, but still one worthy of discussion. Camarouge (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the Verge article is fine – recognize that it is also opinion. The Guardian article would have to be used as that's the spark that set the attention of the decision to the rest of the world, and then the WMF's official response to the misinformation to that. But again, this isn't for this page. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No. So far, there is nothing that WP has that has affected the GG situation. There are pages about Criticism of WP that this could go, though as TO notes, only a few above are reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

GG is a controversy playing out online, in various fora. WP has not just affected the GG situation. It is the GG situation right now. However, WP:NOTNEWS. There should be more time and reliable sources before considering putting anything in the article. Rhoark (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There has yet to be a sourcable impact on GG because of the ArbCom ruling, which is why sticking it in here now it a bit of navel gazing. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI, information about this Arbcom ruling has been included in the Criticism of Wikipedia article, alongside Auerbach's comments on the GGTF arbcom ruling. Bosstopher (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

On the Law & Order news

[6]. As the source of this is a source I'm not 100% familiar with, I recommend we hold off until the episode airs or nears airing and there's better confirmation that the episode alludes/mirrors/was inspired by GG to include. --MASEM (t) 04:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps create a "References in popular media" section when it airs and create a list. I'm sure South Park will have something before long. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this (most pop culture references, I would think) certainly seem like something we should hold off mentioning until they're actually released. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Eh not the worse source in the world but I see little reason not to wait until the show has been released.©Geni (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't need to include that with such a tenuous connection at this point, since we don't know all the details yet. After the show airs and some reviews/analysis come out, we could revisit. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Where is the "controversy"?

This article is supposed to be about the controversy, but it's not very clear what the two sides of the controversy are. For this article to do justice to this referent, it should go out of its way to present to give both sides. Otherwise, this article should be retitled by moving it to "Gamersgate", because it's not about a controversy but a hashtag movement. Chrisrus (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There are some ants that might object to that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There is also an online retailer that might object. — Strongjam (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

For extra laughs [7] Avono (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Many archive pages go into this, but the controversy as reflected by the sources we have is primarily is about how the actions of the movement – directly or not – have been perceived and condemned by the media at large. We know that the movement itself has controversial issues with games journalism, but is really not sufficient sourcing to go into much detail about this. As per NPOV and UNDUE, we are restricted to what the body of reliable sources in terms of how much weight we give any side of a topic. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You are right. This issue is difficult for that reason. However, can't WP:RSes be found in which the author reaches out to the pro-GamerGate side and summarizes their side of the story? What about this one, here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/10/09/gamergate-is-not-a-hate-group-its-a-consumer-movement/? Even though Gamergate supporters are a group of living people, not a single living person, living people are being broadly painted as bunch of vile women-hating thugs here, and as with our guidelines of living people state, when people are being accused of something terrible we have an obligation to go out of our way to be very careful to be as fair and balanced as possible. Chrisrus (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not apply to large anonymous groups. Also, Erik Kain is already heavily used in the article (indeed I'm pretty sure he is by far our most cited source.) Well past where it's WP:UNDUE for a WP:NEWSBLOG. — Strongjam (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick count and I was wrong, we cite Kain 13 times and VanDerWerff 14 times! Eventually we're going to have to go back over this article and think about re-weighting some of our earlier tech blog articles. — Strongjam (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

We have been working to reflect in this article that it is a strong, widely-held opinion of the press that, for example, GG is misogynistic campaign instead of one based on ethics, and making sure that it is not presented as a fact, nor the "right" opinion. That's unfortunately the best we can do to take away that stigma – that's most of the reason that GG is covered in reliable sources to start is that the press has reported so negatively about it. That's been the struggle of the last several months is that there is very little press that does not take that tone, though we do have enough to at least describe the movement as an challenge towards ethics, but that's still an element that has recieved criticism that we can't avoid. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I think we've done a pretty good job of making sure such things are attributed. I think the only thing that can be difficult to read out of the article at the moment is "What is Gamergate?" and unfortunately if you asked five Gamergate supporters that question you'll probably get five different answers. I'm not sure what we can do about that. — Strongjam (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll point again to my reorg that is presently sitting at the draft page (per suggestion of Tony). The one thing we can do is at least segment off what we know the GG movement is, what demonstrated ethic issues they have, and address commentary that is specifically about the movement with no question – that is, the doubts and concerns of their ethics claims, and the aspects of the leaderless organization. The remaining material about sexism/misogyny, gamer identity, and the like, are about more than just the movement itself, and does include aspects of the industry recognizing that they partially to blame for what has happened. In addition to just reviewing the wording and choice of quotes, that would help be as neutral as we possibly can be within the constraits of WP's sourcing requirements and without moving too far off what the press has to say about this. We just can make sure the neutrality is better met to avoid any judgement of the movement in WP's voice, while reiterating what is loud and clear from the press side. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem might be that we spend a lot of time focusing on Gamergate as a movement and less on what they did and when/why. Right now we've got a whole section on the Gamergate Organization and their activities, but having it in its own section separates the activities from the context in which they happened. I've attempted a reorganization here. I also did a whole lot of trimming, which I'm sure won't get many positive responses, but I think the structure change helps, and also puts into perspective where we have an excess of information and where we might be able to add more or cut things out entirely. Thoughts? Kaciemonster (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I suppose my question, for both Masem and Kaciemonster (and anyone else), is how we differentiate "commentary that is specifically about the movement with no question" from "material about sexism/misogyny, gamer identity, and the like." I think there are a significant number of people, a significant number of editors, and most importantly a significant number of our reliable sources that would argue that the material regarding sexism, gamer identity, etc., is just as important to a discussion and understanding of the "movement." AtomsOrSystems (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that's why a more chronological organization works better. I think the current article, even though it mentions how misogynistic the harassment was and the sexism in gamer culture is talked about, it's not really presented in any way other than commentary. We have enough sources to present the article as the facts in the order and way they happened, and honestly I don't think much more needs to be done other than that to demonstrate exactly what the movement did and when to show why it was misogynistic. We might want to consider (regardless of what we ultimately decide to do with the article) looking at the timeline of events as a way to refocus. I've seen a lot of people on the talk page say "well we really don't know what happened" but the thing is we know exactly what happened, and I think we did so much fiddling with the article and trying to get everything to a place where nobody was upset about the content that we over-focused on the commentary and sort of forgot about the events. I hope this makes sense, sorry :( Kaciemonster (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention gamer identity. I think we have the perfect place to discuss that in the section about the "end of the gamer" articles. Kaciemonster (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

To comment on that draft, I think that order doesn't work well. The GG situation has had many simultaneous things happening after August/Sept that a chronological order doesn't make that much sense, and complicates the matters of distinguishing what "Gamergate the self-described movement" has done and what "Gamergate the hashtag that has been used to harass women" has done without implicating the two groups are the same (which is a key element here – the press have claimed they are but there's also sourcable counterclaims to at least assert that they are not equal groups, and because of that, we need to treat "Gamergate the movement" the decorum of presuming they are not about harassment, though will include the press's opinion that it is.) --MASEM (t) 21:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should be separating the Gamergate movement from the Gamergate harassment. Reliable sources don't treat them as two separate groups and neither should we. This is also an article about the Gamergate controversy, not the Gamergate movement, and so we should be covering all aspects of the controversy. Chronologically, I think it makes quite a bit of sense. Zoepost is released, Quinn is accused of sleeping with a journalist for positive press, accusations are shown to be false. The Fine Young Capitalists talk about their feud with Quinn, people get riled up about it and give them a bunch of money. Adam Baldwin tweets a link to some videos about the "Quinnspiracy" with the hashtag Gamergate. People run with it, the hashtag Notyourshield comes out right after. Shortly after, Sarkeesian is harassed when she releases a new episode of Tropes VS Women. In response to the harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian, a bunch of journalists write "End of the Gamer" articles. In response to that, Gamergate starts Operation Disrespectful Nod to get companies to pull advertising from the sites that posted the articles. The response to the Sam Biddle tweets can also be included here since they were part of the same operation. Some advertisers pulled advertising and then reinstated it, Intel did a bunch of stuff, Operation Baby Seal, etc. Then we've got the Sarkeesian shooting threat, the harassment of Wu, and Day, and the industry response to it. Those are the main events of the controversy, I don't understand how presenting it like that is unclear. Kaciemonster (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No, they are considered two separate groups, though with a possible overlap in membership, but to what degree, we don't know. We know from sources there are some GG movement members that are not harassers, and there's a strong evidence that there are harassers that are not GG people. The reason this article is a battleground is that it initially started assigning these groups the same due to how sources were presenting it, and thus basically implicating anyone that was a GG member as an harasser. Since we have sources that make it clear this cannot be said factually, we should take the most cautious road and consider them two separate groups though with possible cross-membership, which prevents us from saying anything stronger than what the sources give. In terms of the chronology, alot of the events following the Wu harassment and the USU threat are just arguments and not time-critical events in the situation, hence why a detailed chronological matter doesn't make sense here, beyond the initial 2-some months. --MASEM (t) 00:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The only people who believe they are considered two separate groups are you and Gamergate supporters. No source is saying that literally all Gamergate supporters are also harassers, and it would be ridiculous to argue that, but this is an article about the Gamergate Controversy, so unless we're going to remove everything about the apparently completely separate Gamergate movement that just so happened to pop up at the exact same time as the harassment of Zoe Quinn and just leave in the stuff about the harassment, we have to treat them as coming from the same group. There are way more sources that do not make the distinction "not all Gamergaters" than those that do, and realistically, all they're saying is "not all Gamergaters." Basing the entire article around a barely supported viewpoint is giving it undue weight. Also considering the harassment in October is basically the last notable thing that Gamergate did, I don't think that's really an argument against a more chronological structure. Kaciemonster (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

To be clear: I'm 100% against any attempt to split the topic of the GG movement and the harassment via GG tag into separate articles. The two topics are so interlocked, and we cannot avoid talking about the press that have blamed the movement for creating the environment that allows for harassment. My point is that we can better see how to write a neutral article keeping in mind we have two different aspects of one topic here: the movement, and the harassment. See the NYTimes quote I put below that shows what the better sources are doing: they aren't saying the harassment comes from the movement, directly, but that the harassment is aligned with the movement, and they blame the movement for enabling this. We can write a neutral article that considers both parts separately, with the criticism of the harassment build atop the knowledge about the movement's problems as seen by the press. --MASEM (t) 01:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying we should split them into two articles, I'm saying you're misinterpreting sources, and as a result absolving the Gamergate movement of the harassment they caused. You're implying that the source is saying something that it isn't actually saying. I suggest you read my comment again. Kaciemonster (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I am in full agreement that we have to say that commentators have agreed that the GG movement – directly or not – are responsible for creating the environment and/or attitude for the harassment attacks, and for this reason alone is why the two parts have to be discussed within the same article and discussed at times together. Just that we cannot assign direct blame of the harassment (that is, the people actually sending the messages, performing the doxxing, etc.) to the movement because it is not clear by the sources if the movement has any direct role in the harassment, and certainly not the whole movement. --MASEM (t) 04:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That's the thing though, there aren't two parts that need to be discussed. They're from the same group and we have enough sources to back it up. Nobody is suggesting "let's directly blame the harassment on each and every individual 'gater", but we DO have to blame it on Gamergate itself, as per reliable sources. We don't need to constantly suggest throughout the article that it's only SOME Gamergate supporters doing harassment, but this is what their movement is notable for. We can't pretend there are two different gamergates, the good one and the bad one, they're both the same group. Kaciemonster (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that there really isn't any sources that put the ethics controversy at the same level or more important than the issues about sexism and misogyny that we can use. We have some sources that do have the industry figures stating that there are ethics issues – though not all the same GG has identified, but then say all this is overwhelmed by the situation regarding the harassment. This is where we are stuck with, and would require either a larger number of equivalently reliable sources focus on the ethics (which we have no idea if this might come around or not), or we have a massive sea change at WP at what we use as sources, which is very much unlikely to happen given how stable they are. The article in its present state is about 90% appropriate under WP policy, irregardless of what has happened prior to the ArbCom decision; the last 10% has been what is the issue of trying to improve it better. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Masem: would you mind pointing to some of these sources? The ones on the article seem to very clearly equate the movement with the harassers, although to be honest a few of them run with the "useful idiots" angle as well.192.249.47.186 (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not at a place I can link the sources, but in the present article, we have the discussion about the "GG moderate" that are engaged in anti-harassment stuff, at least one or two sources that discuss the harassers being a "vocal minority" of those using the hashtag, and sources that point to evidence of third-parties getting involved that have no stake in GG but using it to stir the pot. The higher quality sources like NYTimes and the like are careful in their language too – they do assign that harassment comes from people using the GG tag or tied to the GG movement, but do not say explicitly say the movement itself did the harassment; they have readily placed blame on the movement – even if they are not actively doing anything with harassment – that their lack of organization and their indifference or the like towards the harassment has created a situation that enables the harassment. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't really make it sound like they are two unique groups, though, that just makes it sound like the opinions are not unanimous among all members, but are still enabled. For example, it's true that not all Republicans are Conservatives, and vice versa, but it would not be very reasonable to talk about them as disparate groups, and claim that the Republican Party does not support conservative values, without RS making that distinction as their conclusion. If the RS are implicitly or explicitly distinguishing between "Gamergaters" and "Gamergate-based Harassers", then I could support distinguishing between them in the article, but I'm not sure the examples you brought up support that.

Sidenote: I believe mentioning "Quinn is accused <redacted>" above to be a violation of BLP requirements for this page, even if that is what she was accused of. Do we need to scrub it, or are we allowed to discuss the content of the accusations so long as we note them as false?192.249.47.186 (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Since we're discussing whether something in a source is reasonable for use in the article, I think it's fine there, although I could be wrong. Supported or not, it is undeniably stated in the cited source. I would be perfectly happy if a more experienced editor decided it was appropriate to scrub it. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

In addition, I tend to agree with your characterization of how the movement is covered in the cited sources, and any of the reliable sources I've seen. That was why I was interested how it was proposed we should try to differentiate between the two. But I suppose that's the debate here--or one of them, at least. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, it's impossible to have a conversation about why the harassment against Quinn was misogynistic if we can't discuss what the misogynistic accusations against her actually were. It's classic sexism to accuse a woman of sleeping with someone to further her career, and it's something we need to be able to discuss in that context. Kaciemonster (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

At the same time, we do have a (very serious) responsibility to avoid spreading any harassment further, or giving it undue weight, which we can do even by mentioning it here. It was a fair point that the IP editor made, I think. Either way, it seems to have been handled. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The attacks against Quinn and Sarkeesian and Wu are all see as misogynyistic because as RS state, there was a pattern (they're all females) in addition to the use of rape threats and the SWJ/feminism threats. This only came out after the fact – the threats towards Quinn alone did not have that pattern. But that's the attacks. The identity of the people that did them and their relation to the people that identify themselves as the GG movement is unclear and/or a contested fact in highly reliable sources; there is no evidence they are one and the same, but there's no evidence that they aren't the same, and hence the need to tread with more care and making sure when opinions that claim that the harassment came from the movement, to express these as opinions and not fact. --MASEM (t) 00:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"The identity of the people that did them and their relation to the people that identify themselves as the GG movement is unclear and/or a contested fact in highly reliable sources" – again, can you provide the source for that? That's a rather strong claim to make, and the NY Times article you specified doesn't seem to make that strong a claim. If I'm just failing to find these highly reliable sources, can you please help me out? If not, I'll try to go through the sources we have attached to the article already.192.249.47.186 (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Take this NYTimes article [8]. "The threats against Ms. Sarkeesian are the most noxious example of a weekslong campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry and its culture. The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage." Note that it considers the harasser institigators and the movement separate, as I've described. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't help but feel you're trying to cut a proverbial hair here, particularly given (as you have repeatedly noted) that whatever this movement is, it's both leaderless and decentralized. If we have a number of sources that associate the harassment with the movement itself (or persons within the movement), and a few others that can be selected out as saying that the harassment was carried out by people "allied with the broader movement," is that really a significant difference, or are we trying to bend the sources over backwards to paint a picture? AtomsOrSystems (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that less-then-higher reliable sources have blamed the entire GG movement for actively engaging in harassment, which is a contentious claim given that others like the NYTimes article here and others have said there are GG movement supporters that are not in this. We have to be aware that is a very contentious claim and should be treated carefully per NPOV (opinion, not fact). Taking the stance that factually there is the GG movement, that there are harassers that use GG, with unclear overlap, we have a base that builds onto the predominate view that the GG movement – directly or indirectly – is responsible for the harassment, and the smaller view that some of the GG movement is trying stop the harassment. It is not a manner of trying to twist through the reliable sources, but recognizing that they have prejudged the GG movement, and we cannot take that same tone as an encyclopedia to be neutral. We have to find the neutral ,factual details and then show the opinions that stem from the those. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It's been explained multiple times now why this is a misinterpretation of the reliable sources. The harassment has been connected to the Gamergate movement in basically every single reliable source we use, including the example you gave. You can't claim that all of the reliable sources except the ones you support are only stating their opinions, and we shouldn't follow up every single mention of harassment in the article with "not all gamergaters". Kaciemonster (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying, largely, I just think that we have to use the reliable sources we have, until such a time as new ones are found, presented, or come into existence. Trying to draw a distinction between action attributed by the sources to the "movement" and actions attributed to the "allies of the movement" seems like a stretch, particularly as it's a distinction that isn't made in all, most, or (as far as I can tell) more than a few of the sources currently available.

That being said, I do agree with Masem's goal in principle, so I think I'm going to hold of on adding to this back and forth for actual changes to the article or the draft. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I misspoke, I don't think we should draw any distinctions between the actions attributed to the movement and the actions attributed to the allies of the movement. They're one in the same, and I think we have more than enough sources to show that. Kaciemonster (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the confusion is more on me. My previous comment was more in response to Masem; I didn't really notice as I was writing it that you had commented as I was writing the response. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There is some confusion because there are two ways that the harassment has been connected to the movement claimed by the press. One is the direct – the actual actions of sending threats, doxxing, making calls, etc., all the criminal activities that harassment covers, and the other is the indirect factor – people going "they got what they deserved", speaking ill will of those targetted, and not trying to distance themselves from that. The latter, I'm in 100% full agreement that most sources attach the harassment to the movement via this means. They just careful avoid saying that the movement is directly involved (instead assigning direct blame to people that use the gg hashtag), and that's the clarity we need to keep in mind here. The current article state does a careful job to make this distinction to follow this approach in the sources. There is absolutely no way not to include the criticism of the movement that assigns them the impartial responsibility for the harassment campaign. --MASEM (t) 04:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The confusion has literally nothing to do with that, I thought they were replying to me but they were replying to you, that was the confusion. It still doesn't change the fact that this conversation isn't going anywhere. I've responded already to everything you keep repeating, as have other people. Writing the same thing over and over again isn't productive. It's time to move on from this conversation. Kaciemonster (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Administrator note It is acceptable to discuss false allegations in the context of the way they were reported or in the context of their being false, as far is as absolutely necessary for the development of the article, but please be very careful in how you choose your words and have due care for the real people who are being discussed. The same considerations obviously apply to true allegations, but that requires rock-solid sourcing, even on a talk page. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! AtomsOrSystems (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

To put the blame of the harassment direct on the movement is not something we can do. I will agree some sources do say that. But other just-as-reliable sources say that they are not, thus creating a conflict. Because we are neutral and impartial, and play things safe on purpose, we need to take the road that it is unknown if the harassment came from the movement, but we can certainly spell out the claims made by many sources that the harassment is directly done by the harassment. That keeps that predominate view in the article as it needs to be, but out of WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 04:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from, Masem. Would you help me see where our reliable sources say that the harassment tied so strongly to gamergate does not come from the leaderless gamergate movement? Is there another faction here we're missing? It's important that we correctly attribute harassment, as if our attribution is tied to identifiable persons, it may violate out BLP policies. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no source that has evidence of any person that says they are a GG supporter of also being a harasser. Claims that this is the case, yes, from many sources, but we have, for example this that identifies that there is a large fraction of people in the GG movement that are fighting the harassment. There might exist some GG movement people that are involved in the harassment, but we simply don't have evidence of that, and even if we did, we as a neutral voice could not use the superlative "the entire GG movement is performing the harassment." We absolutely need to attribute the harassment to people using the "gamergate" hashtag (this is 100% clear in the sources), but that's a different group from the group that makes up GG movement, whom also use the "gamergate" hashtag to promote their concerns. That's the limit we can assign direct responsibility for harassment. As for the indirect responsibility, many sources do put that blame on the GG movement for creating the environment that enables the harassment, but that doesn't mean we in WP's voice can directly blame them for the harassment. Note that there are no known identifyable persons in the movement establishes yet. --MASEM (t) 04:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, we can't be saying "the entire GG movement is performing the harassment." Frankly, particularly in the more recent revisions of the article, I don't see anywhere that it does say that. But you're still trying to draw a line between "people using the GG hashtag for harassment" and "the group that makes up GG movement, whom also use the "gamergate" hashtag to promote their concerns." As you say yourself, it's a leaderless movement that is often distinguished solely by the use of the hashtag (or similar identification). I think a lot of the questions you're seeing here are people wondering where, and how, you want to draw the line between the two. It seems a number of us are still failing to see the distinction you're trying to make. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Which is a completely fair question. The way I view the distinction is that the "movement" are those people that say that they are part of the GG movement specifically calling to the ethics issues, regardless if they use the hashtag or not. The other group are people that just happen to use the #GG directly for harassment. A way to possible see what I mean is to check the draft space article here: [9] --MASEM (t) 05:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

So, effectively, the true gamergaters are those who talk about the ethics claims that have been denounced by our reliable sources, and anybody who uses the GG hashtag to harass people is no true gamergater? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be more the case that the harassers are a subset of the people that use the GG hashtag, and whom have poisoned the term for anyone else, including those in the movement, that have used it. But I'm not sure how well that clears that up. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to the reliable source you wish to use that makes that distinction, or delineates the groups how you wish to have them delineated? It would be much easier to discuss with your source to refer to. Sappow (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Take the NYTimes source quote above. It, and where most other sources attempt an objective definition of the movement, are clear that they see the movement as those people that say they are about ethics concerns. Another example, [10] "In other words, the movement is focused on “ethical problems” in games journalism; the harassment which is endemic in gamergate is then blamed on “a much smaller faction”, one which the bulk of Gamergate is, to quote actor Adam Baldwin, the instigator of the hashtag, saying “this is not what we’re about”. The Gamergate line is that it vigorously self-polices, tracking down rogue elements within the movement who harass women, and telling them to stop." Mind you, some of this is self-definition (there's sources that doubt the veracity of the "movement" claim, no question), but this is a line we can use. The movement are those talking ethics but do not discuss, or otherwise they denounce, the harassment aspects, while the set of people that harass under the GG tag is the other larger group. --MASEM (t) 06:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It took me a bit to find all three articles; To round em up for other people reading, the ones he's linked are Slate, The Guardian, and NYTimes. I note all these articles are from October, two from fairly early in it; are you trying to make a historical argument here? Or just state that that's what Gamergate believes/believed about itself in October?

Because that Guardian article doesn't actually -support- that point of view, the section you shared is wrapped up in quotes for a reason; That and the paragraph before it were introduced by ending the paragraph before them by saying "the New York Times piece also regurgitated Gamergate’s own explanations for its existence.", and then quoting the times. That seems to indicate that The Guardian gives no actual credence to those claims? 'Regurgitated' is generally not something I imagine as a positive adjective you use for statements you consider valid and credible.

Like, that set of paragraphs was then followed with "But while the movement identifies itself as being about ethics in gaming journalism, its targets and its practices belie the truth."

Basically, to me that seems to strongly indicate that their writer and editors believed, well, just about the opposite of what you're claiming they were saying... have I misread something? That particular article does not seem to give any credibility to GG's claims about itself. Sappow (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Just because the writer concludes a different interpretation of the details at the end of the day doesn't mean their attempt to be objective to start cannot be used. Nearly all sources stated with some type of objectivity the movement claims it is not about harassment but about ethics. At which point the bulk of those sources say "that's likely BS" and assign blame of the situation on the movement. Both facets can be used – objectively to talk about the movement, and in criticism and analysis to talk about how the media believes its not. That's a neutral picture to present as we do with most other groups or people that are otherwise universally disliked by the public opinion. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

So what you're suggesting we do is use the sources we're citing to come to a completely different conclusion than the sourcing we're citing do? The sources are not specifying a difference between Gamergate the harassers and Gamergate the movement.Kaciemonster (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No. But that there is a line drawn between facts that we can state in WPs voice (that GG is a self-described movement that claims to be about ethics) and opinion (that the press widely see the movement as enabling harassment). A given source may provide both. The NYTimes article for example is a good example of this where it tries to lay out objectively what the movement is before going deep into the criticism against it. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What makes Gamergate's statement on what they're about objective, while the press statement is only opinion? We know, as a fact from basically every single reliable source that we have, that Gamergate started as a campaign to discredit and harass Zoe Quinn. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It is their statement that they are a movement. That's a fact. That is, it is not saying factually "Gamergate is a movement" but "Gamergate supports say that Gamergate is a movement". And no, we don't have evidence that Gamergate was organized to be about harassment, short of Quinn's logs which have been tagged as uncertain. We know harassment was used the GG hashtag from the start, we know the movement started at the same time, and Occum's razor suggests they are one and the same, but that's not evidence to make the claim. It's certainly the predominate view to express but that's what the controversy is for all purposes – is the GG movement about ethics or is it about harassment? --MASEM (t) 16:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep rehashing the same argument, please re-read all of my replies to you for my response. You're making the same points in every comment, and I'm not going to continue with a discussion where my previous replies to you aren't considered. This is no longer a productive discussion on how to better improve the article, and if neither "side" is going to change their talking points or concede in any way then it should not continue. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, to be clear: it is objective for us to say "Gamergate believes itself as a movement about ethics". It is objective for us to say "The press believe GG is a campaign for harassment". We are presenting both view in an objective manner, stating their separate ideas of what they believe the GG movement is about. There's no special treatment here. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Both statements are sourced to the press, so if we do it your way we must also say "The press believes that Gamergate believes itself as a movement about ethics". The harassment is undeniably coming from Gamergate, and we can't pretend that it's the just the opinion of every single reliable source that we have. Kaciemonster (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No, we cannot write that the harassment is "undeniably" coming from Gamergate. We have sources that counter this, that have recognized that there are people that may use the GG hashtag but are not associated with the movement directly (like the NYtimes) and sources that say that there are third parties that are harassing under the hashtag just to stir the pot. Harassment is coming from those using the GG hashtag, absolutely true, but we cannot say that the harassment is coming directly from those that consider themselves part of the movement. That the press has a strong belief that there are those in the movement engaging in harassing, or that the movement as a whole is about harassment, we can absolutely state with attribution. That the press strongly believes the movement is enabling the harassment by their unorganized nature, we can absolutely state with attribution. But we cannot state, as a fact, that the GG movement is directly responsible for the harassment as a fact in WP's voice, because the claims from RSes are very much conflicted on this. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Of the 3 sources you mentioned that you say support your opinion, 2 of them don't actually support the idea that there are two separate groups, and the other one I didn't read. It's been explained why your interpretation of the NYTimes article is wrong. Everything else has already been explained to you in detail, and if you still don't agree, there's no more conversation to be had here. Unless you'd like to keep rehashing the same points. I'd be happy to do that, since we both seem to have a horrendous case of LastWorditis, but we're both past the point of productive conversation. Kaciemonster (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It has been said above in several words, so I'm just going to repeat it down here quite simply: This seems like a very well-worded "No True Scotsman" that has been seen all along in this, and most other, leaderless movements. I have no doubt that Masem's intent is good, but I fail to see how the sources, including those you continue presenting, draw a line there. How is one person using the hashtag, and another person using the hashtag, ant different? Further, as Kaciemonster noted above, it's a conclusion that not even the sources come to, leading us to cite the sources towards a conclusion they themselves do not draw. (NB: Edit Conflict) AtomsOrSystems (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

IB Times

Some concern about this edit by @Carwil:. I don't think it's supported by the source, and maybe attributing opinions to Baldwin that aren't supported by the source. Am I missing something in the source? — Strongjam (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's the relevant quote: "Actor Adam Baldwin, 52, known for his past roles as Agent John Casey in NBC series “Chuck” and Jayne Cobb in sci-fi series “Firefly,” was the first to use the gamergate hashtag on Twitter in August. Baldwin continues to be an active participant in the online debate, accusing gaming journalism sites like Kotaku of using collusion tactics and alleged unethical conduct." Other than saying that -gate means "a scandal" I don't see what I'm adding here.--Carwil (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

In our article "sought to define certain media coverage—praise of certain games developed by women and criticism of sexism within the video game industry—as an ethical scandal", I don't think the source talks about the type of media coverage so I don't think we can make the jump in our paraphrasing. — Strongjam (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There's also this: [11] "[The liberal]'s agenda's been to enforce arbitrary "social justice" rules upon gamers & the culture by stifling varying viewpoints."

And this: "I just put a hashtag on a tweet when I saw a couple of videos. I had no intention of creating a hashtag movement or anything like that. I just thought of it as Watergate Jr. I’m not really the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to gamer journalism or even games in general. But the people that took up the mantle have been experiencing social justice warfare, and they’re sick of it, and they’re speaking up. And obviously the social justice warriors are angry and lashing back."[12]

I'm open to other ways of defining this, but there should be some way to do so here.--Carwil (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Might be able to do something with the interview (is Rawstory RS?) for his opinion that "[Liberal media] agenda's been to enforce arbitrary "social justice" rules upon gamers & the culture by stifling varying viewpoints." Seems to encapsulate his view as what GG is fighting against. Also, I feel stupid as I just noticed that is exactly what you quoted. — Strongjam (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Abbreviated that quote and combined with culture war reference. RawStory should be reliable as publisher of interview about the interviewee's views, per WP:QUESTIONABLE.--Carwil (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)