Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 28
(Redirected from Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 28)
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Gamergate (harassment campaign). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
Potential sources
While looking around i found some self written GG report, now i know it cant be used because it doesn't paint gamergate in a negative light but i think we can use the sources cited at the end for a summery of what GG thinks is wrong with the journalism industry
(Redacted) per WP:BLP
|
- I'd say we can't use the "dossier" itself more because it's a self-published internet post written with no clear editorial oversight by a group of anonymous people on the internet, more than because "it doesn't paint Gamergate in a negative light." The list of articles is worth looking through, but with a cursory glance, I don't see how most of them relate directly to the Gamergate controversy. Indeed, most of them predate the controversy, some by a rather significant amount. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS (TALK) 07:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, after looking at this closer, can you give an idea of how you think any of these might be useful to the article? The only ones I see that relate to the Gamergate controversy in any meaningful way are 42 and 46. Of those, 42 is a blog post on tumblr, and 46 is already included in the article (by way of its use in an On The Media report). -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS (TALK) 08:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I reckon that the sources could be used to describe GG's grievances against the press, like a summery of what
wethey think is wrong with the press, also i think the dossier is good background reading (for editors) --Retartist 08:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)- How would you want to use them "to describe GG's grievances against the press," though? The article is already arguably oversourced, I'm not sure it will be useful to try to add sources or information that doesn't relate to the controversy in any apparent, meaningful way. Do you have any specific suggestions? -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS (TALK) 08:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I dont have a specific wording change yet but i'm thinking that we could add some GG pov into "Debate over ethics in journalism" as the section is largely criticism by journalists on GG "Gamergate's demands have often been hard to quantify, but numerous journalists who have attempted to do so" I'm thinking that we can add more rebuttals or even the demands of GG because after reading that section i'm not seeing a debate (or what gg is demanding). --RetΔrtist (разговор) 09:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- only if you have reliably published sources that put the material in the context of the gamergate situation, otherwise doing so based on your own personal interpretations is not allowed- we dont do research, we report what the experts have discovered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate you pulling together all of these references, Retartist because I'm unfamiliar with some of them that talk about the bigger picture of videogame culture, business and journalism. But, as has been said, this article is already heavily sourced and the articles would have to be weighed as to their reliability and whether they have anything to add to the article. Of course, it is difficult to talk about the goals, grievances and achievements of GamerGate because it isn't an organization with articulated goals, grievances and achievements. It's a hashtag that both pros, antis and neutrals use on Twitter, a few forums and some specific threads on online forums. Who speaks for GamerGate? Everyone and no one. Liz Read! Talk! 17:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the list i have in the table is only 1-50 of 121 sources because i didn't have time to put a ":" in front of all of them, ill get to that
nowsoon because the school has blocked it for "games"now --RetΔrtist (разговор) 21:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the list i have in the table is only 1-50 of 121 sources because i didn't have time to put a ":" in front of all of them, ill get to that
- I appreciate you pulling together all of these references, Retartist because I'm unfamiliar with some of them that talk about the bigger picture of videogame culture, business and journalism. But, as has been said, this article is already heavily sourced and the articles would have to be weighed as to their reliability and whether they have anything to add to the article. Of course, it is difficult to talk about the goals, grievances and achievements of GamerGate because it isn't an organization with articulated goals, grievances and achievements. It's a hashtag that both pros, antis and neutrals use on Twitter, a few forums and some specific threads on online forums. Who speaks for GamerGate? Everyone and no one. Liz Read! Talk! 17:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- only if you have reliably published sources that put the material in the context of the gamergate situation, otherwise doing so based on your own personal interpretations is not allowed- we dont do research, we report what the experts have discovered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- That's because virtually all pro-GG debaters are vocal forum aficionados and other types of non-notable people. We will give them as much room to elaborate here as we do with other opinionated non-notable amateurs.
- Peter Isotalo 11:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I dont have a specific wording change yet but i'm thinking that we could add some GG pov into "Debate over ethics in journalism" as the section is largely criticism by journalists on GG "Gamergate's demands have often been hard to quantify, but numerous journalists who have attempted to do so" I'm thinking that we can add more rebuttals or even the demands of GG because after reading that section i'm not seeing a debate (or what gg is demanding). --RetΔrtist (разговор) 09:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- How would you want to use them "to describe GG's grievances against the press," though? The article is already arguably oversourced, I'm not sure it will be useful to try to add sources or information that doesn't relate to the controversy in any apparent, meaningful way. Do you have any specific suggestions? -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS (TALK) 08:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I reckon that the sources could be used to describe GG's grievances against the press, like a summery of what
- I have redacted a link to an anonymously-written, patently-unreliable source which contains a wide array of negative statements and allegations about living people, under the topic ban exemption for the removal of clear and unambiguous BLP violations. This link is clearly unacceptable anywhere in the encyclopedia and has previously been removed from talkspace for the same reason. Reinserting it is likely to lead to sanctions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to revert you because the link itself is not under discussion but the cited list of sources at the end of the document --RetΔrtist (разговор) 21:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- You've just violated BLP after being warned. I have redacted the link again, and if you take this to Arbitration Enforcement, you're likely to be the one who ends up blocked. It doesn't matter whether or not you think the link is "under discussion," the link is an anonymous, unreliable personal blog which makes a number of allegations about living people — as such, it is a flagrant violation of policy to link it on the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- That is NOT a proper use of the exception, since the link was not in the piece itself, you ARE in violation of your topic ban. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- @AnsFenrisulfr: take that up with ARBCOM if you truly feel that way. NBSB's edit seems within BANEX to me. That link made serious negative allegations against BLPs. It does not belong on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have. I had wished to avoid editing or dealing with this article after I had received Bite. Sadly, I cannot ignore this. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- BLP applies to all areas of the encyclopedia, including talk pages. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Please share where (use their cite number) the BLP allegation is because i can't find (ctrl+f) anywhere where a specific allegation is made that violates blp --RetΔrtist (разговор) 22:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- The BLP violation is all of the times they keep claiming items that actual reliable sources have proven false. The hundred or so times they do so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Retartist: - if there are specific references you'd like included in the article to verify existing or proposed new points, please post links just to those references and then discuss. There is no need to post them alongside an entire "dossier" of unrelated material which, if proposed in its entirety for inclusion in Wikipedia, would be in breach of both WP:RS and WP:BLP. Unrelated point - if you believe a topic ban has been breached, please take it to WP:AE ratehr than arguing it here. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- The source alleges a named individual is a trans woman and intended to defraud donors. That's about as serious a BLP violation as you can get. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ok i see it now --RetΔrtist (разговор) 22:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- The source alleges a named individual is a trans woman and intended to defraud donors. That's about as serious a BLP violation as you can get. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Retartist: - if there are specific references you'd like included in the article to verify existing or proposed new points, please post links just to those references and then discuss. There is no need to post them alongside an entire "dossier" of unrelated material which, if proposed in its entirety for inclusion in Wikipedia, would be in breach of both WP:RS and WP:BLP. Unrelated point - if you believe a topic ban has been breached, please take it to WP:AE ratehr than arguing it here. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Only one BLP violation suffices to make the entire thing worthless — it claims that named people engaged in a conspiracy to financially harm another group of people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. if the "dossier" cotnains a link to some other reference (eg a newspaper article) then that newspaper article might (subject to RS and BLP) be able to be linked directly here for discussion. But we don't need to go via the "dossier" to see the newspaper article link. And the "dossier" itself is not reliable, contains BLP violations, and should not be linked to from this page. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- The BLP violation is all of the times they keep claiming items that actual reliable sources have proven false. The hundred or so times they do so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Please share where (use their cite number) the BLP allegation is because i can't find (ctrl+f) anywhere where a specific allegation is made that violates blp --RetΔrtist (разговор) 22:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- @AnsFenrisulfr: take that up with ARBCOM if you truly feel that way. NBSB's edit seems within BANEX to me. That link made serious negative allegations against BLPs. It does not belong on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to revert you because the link itself is not under discussion but the cited list of sources at the end of the document --RetΔrtist (разговор) 21:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I note that Retartist's latest edit inserted a wide array of blatantly-BLP-violating links as alleged and putative "sources," including personal blogs, IMGUR screencaps and anonymous slander pieces. I have begun removing them per WP:BLP/WP:BANEX and suggest that someone bring up Retartist for sanctions. It is unacceptable to use Wikipedia as a platform in furtherance of harassment, slander, libel and character assassination of living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the most recent addition of links as almost entirely completely useless to this article as the potentially reliable sources were all published well before gamergate and their inclusion is not allowed per WP:OR as only Wikipedia editor's personal analysis would make any of them relevant and the recent potentially reliable sources having already been discussed (often multiple times) and not used because we have better sources or what they discuss is not relevant. @Retartist: can save everyone time and frustration by bringing specific sources with specific content suggestions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Political Views
I apologize in advance, I'm honestly so confused by this whole section that I'm not sure what question I'm trying to ask other than "What are we trying to do here?"
I'm not really sure what any of it has to do with political views other than the one line in the second paragraph about exploitation by conservative pundits, and even that is a bit of a stretch. What does the Gamer Identity have to do with political views? Or Misogyny and Anti-Feminism? Whose political views are they supposed to be?
I get the feeling that the section might be a remnant from an older article structure, but even if it isn't I think that we really need to look at it and figure out what we're trying to say, because it isn't clear at all. Kaciemonster (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- It was "politics" in the grander version and not specific electoral, but you are right that as a header it was misleading replaced it with a more accurate "Social and cultural implications" - does that work better? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's definitely better than what it was before, thanks. Kaciemonster (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- There used to be claims that GamerGate was along left-right lines. And then there were claims from within GamerGate that it wasn't. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think there's definitely room for a right wing politics subsection in this newly renamed section. It only just hit me, but we completely ignored that whole event where a republican city council candidate ran a pro-GamerGate election campgain.[1][2][3]. Conversely we've had the Tea Party condemn Gamergate, which also isnt mentioned currently.[4] Alongside the Sam Biddle stuff about "right wing vultures," and Young and Bokhari on right-libertarian alignment, I think there's a fair amount to work on here. Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosstopher (talk • contribs)
- This is also where stuff like how Milo Y. and Christina Hoff Sommers are considered aligned with GG to promote their right-wing aspects (which is sourcable to good RS) can be stated. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't this article already somewhat too long? Just because things happened in relation to gamergate doesn't mean we need to cover absolutely everything. GoldenRing (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- No, its only 71k of prose - in the range where we don't have to split but be aware of that. Mind you, there is a lot that can be trimmed still from the article (we're still too quote-y, and where there is detailed minuta are things that can be summarized better in all parts of the article), but we should be identifying people that are named/notable that have been associated with either side of GG, like both Milo Y. and CHS. --MASEM (t) 02:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Before someone throws WP:TOOBIG up, that's 71k including HTML. 43k of plain text prose. — Strongjam (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oops, yes, I misread the script output. We're well under any severe text size issues. --MASEM (t) 03:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I guess. I wasn't thinking so much of WP:TOOBIG as just that it covers far too much for what the subject is. GoldenRing (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've been giving this a lot of thought and I don't think the problem is that the article is too long or covering too much. I think the problem is that we're taking too long to get to the actual point of what we're trying to say. I've said it before (many times), but the article is basically incomprehensible to someone that doesn't already know everything about Gamergate. There are a couple of areas where we mention a person before we get to the section on why they're relevant (Milo Yiannopoulos receiving a syringe is mentioned 4 sections before his role in the controversy is described), or we split up related events (Operation Disrespectful Nod section describes it as a reaction to the end of the gamer identity articles but isn't discussed alongside the gamer identity section, basically everything in the industry response section, 90% of the Operation Baby Seal section is Operation Disrespectful Nod related). In the Gamer Identity section, we spend 2 paragraphs giving background information before we really explain how it relates to Gamergate at all. It's not really an easy fix situation either, where we can just move a few sentences around in the current structure.
- I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that this article is doing a really bad job of getting to the point, and we can't keep making excuses to push off conversation about it. Kaciemonster (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Before someone throws WP:TOOBIG up, that's 71k including HTML. 43k of plain text prose. — Strongjam (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- No, its only 71k of prose - in the range where we don't have to split but be aware of that. Mind you, there is a lot that can be trimmed still from the article (we're still too quote-y, and where there is detailed minuta are things that can be summarized better in all parts of the article), but we should be identifying people that are named/notable that have been associated with either side of GG, like both Milo Y. and CHS. --MASEM (t) 02:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't this article already somewhat too long? Just because things happened in relation to gamergate doesn't mean we need to cover absolutely everything. GoldenRing (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- This is also where stuff like how Milo Y. and Christina Hoff Sommers are considered aligned with GG to promote their right-wing aspects (which is sourcable to good RS) can be stated. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think there's definitely room for a right wing politics subsection in this newly renamed section. It only just hit me, but we completely ignored that whole event where a republican city council candidate ran a pro-GamerGate election campgain.[1][2][3]. Conversely we've had the Tea Party condemn Gamergate, which also isnt mentioned currently.[4] Alongside the Sam Biddle stuff about "right wing vultures," and Young and Bokhari on right-libertarian alignment, I think there's a fair amount to work on here. Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosstopher (talk • contribs)
SVU Episode
Regarding this bit "though commentators also noted the episode exaggerated events beyond what has actually happened within Gamergate.
". I think this is referring to the kidnapping that's in the show? I appreciate that nothing like that has thankfully happened in real-life, but if we're going to note that we need to be more specific, and I don't see anything in the sources that directly support this assertion. — Strongjam (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- It was my initial impression I got, but that was my first reading, I'm fine with taking that out. I don't want to be having a review of the episode here, only at least establish that it was seen as a take on GG, albeit clumsy in its handling of gaming and online technology. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- As a note, coming from doing a lot of work on plot and primary sourcing, we (WP that is) cannot infer that the episode was related to GG just from the primary source (which otherwise did not mention the term at all); we need to attribute that statement to commentators that it was to avoid the original research. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry, was going to self-revert, but see you've fixed it. — Strongjam (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- No worries; and to be clear if the producers come out and say "Yes, this was based on GG", we can nix that clarification. but so far, I've not seen anything. (I'd also like to try to get a non-tech/gaming source to add to that but ArsTech & the Verge are sufficiently distanced from core gaming sites for that opinion). --MASEM (t) 17:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- In a perfect world we could say it's was a sensationalized take on the controversy, but I don't think the sources come right out and say that. — Strongjam (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- No worries; and to be clear if the producers come out and say "Yes, this was based on GG", we can nix that clarification. but so far, I've not seen anything. (I'd also like to try to get a non-tech/gaming source to add to that but ArsTech & the Verge are sufficiently distanced from core gaming sites for that opinion). --MASEM (t) 17:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry, was going to self-revert, but see you've fixed it. — Strongjam (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, yes, this is Kain, but he is quoting Quinn [5] noting how bad the end of the episode was (the female harassed decided to leave the industry instead of fight), which has been a point the other sources have picked up, in addition to the fumbling around with gamer and technology jargon. I don't have time to check immediately but if other sources repeat what Quinn (or Sarkeesian or Wu) have said about the ending being insulting, that should be included here. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
CORRECTION REQUESTED PLEASE-the episode aired on February 11, 2015. I don't want to start any trouble here but I also noticed-(in the SVU episode), that they used the tern, "Social Justice Warrior"/"SJW" more than once, that cinched it for me that it had ties to GG. A ref. from forbes.com:http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/02/12/law-order-svu-takes-on-gamergate-cant-press-reset-button/ TeeVeeed (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed. Masem linked to that ref already. It's not a Forbes article, rather a contributor blog from a writer we rely too heavily on already for a WP:NEWSBLOG. I'd rather avoid it if we can unless it gives us something essential. — Strongjam (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- SJW has been used prior to GG, GG may have made it more mainstream, but again, my point above - it is still OR to directly say that it was about GG just because things mirrored if if the term GG wasn't named on the show; however, with the use of secondary sources (included already) that say this, we avoid the OR claim. And I do agree I'd rather use another source than Kain's piece to make the statement on how Quinn felt about the episode in particularly the ending (quoting her twitter directly isn't great) but so far the only other source that seems to quote that is Jezebel and that's not great either. If push comes to shove and these are the only sources that use it, I don't see a problem using Kain as long as we limit it to affirming that this is what Quinn said. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed here, not completely opposed, just rather something else first. Also, we need a source for the amalgamation bit in the current paragraph, I'm not seeing it in the current sources. — Strongjam (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- SJW has been used prior to GG, GG may have made it more mainstream, but again, my point above - it is still OR to directly say that it was about GG just because things mirrored if if the term GG wasn't named on the show; however, with the use of secondary sources (included already) that say this, we avoid the OR claim. And I do agree I'd rather use another source than Kain's piece to make the statement on how Quinn felt about the episode in particularly the ending (quoting her twitter directly isn't great) but so far the only other source that seems to quote that is Jezebel and that's not great either. If push comes to shove and these are the only sources that use it, I don't see a problem using Kain as long as we limit it to affirming that this is what Quinn said. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
TY for fixing that!Strongjam and the explanation about that source. I'm a pretty big Law and Order watcher and I was a little surprized about this one too since the Law & Order slogan is "Ripped from the Headlines", and generally they mean newspaper headlines which didn't give GG enormous newspaper coverage-(afaik-but if you're working on this article you probably have a few)......I also do not know if Law & Order ever directly confirms what stories they are highlighting, and they are known for mixing-it-up, or twisting a few different current-events together , adding a rape or assault, and they definitely do not mimic story details or names. TeeVeeed (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Just a note that I removed the part about an "amalgamation" of Sarkeesian and Quinn. I checked the sources and neither mentioned Quinn when talking about the main character. Both did say she resembled Sarkeesian though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Wu directly writes about the episode in Bustle: [6]. Note she calls out the female character as an amalgamation of her, Quinn, and Sarkeesian. Also note: there's more than enough already that the episode itself is notable for its own page, though I don't know if we need it ; what we talk about the episode here should be as it reflects on GG, while if the episode page was made, it can encompasses all that. (Note, for example, the part about the Sony hack is not appropriate here, but good at the episode page, should that be made). --MASEM (t) 04:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Glad there's at least a reason behind that wording, but two secondary sources against a primary sources about written by the subject... call me leery... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Omission of a statement isn't the same as denial or negation of a statement. And in this case, I would put the primary source as the authoritative expert (lacking the writers' or producers' comments) if the character was an amalgamation of themselves than a secondary source, attributed to Wu of course. But now I know that all three have commented in a negative manner on the episode, just not all through good sourcing routes. --MASEM (t) 04:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I am not sure we need to mention this in the article at all. Yes, it feels like a big deal now (mostly because it's the biggest news the controversy has gotten in months), but in the long term? It doesn't add anything, it seems extremely unlikely to have any significant results, and it will mostly just vanish like all their other ripped-from-the-headlines articles. In general, "in popular culture" sections are a bad idea, and I don't think this is any different. If it were somehow happening near the beginning of the controversy (and therefore was part of what brought it to popular attention), sure, it'd make sense to have it here, but now? They do an episode like this for anything that got big headlines; we wouldn't cover the Law and Order episode for most of those (or if we did, it'd eventually get pulled later when someone cleaned up the popular-culture section.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Cathy Young / Allum Bokhari opinions on Gamergate demographics.
After trying to reword it a bit to avoid making it sound like we were citing their opinion pieces for matters of fact, I removed the sentences citing Cathy Young and Allum Bokhari's opinions on Gamergate' diversity (that is, their statements that it contains women and minorities and therefore is diverse, for some meaning of diverse; and, implicitly, that this is a meaningful and important thing to say.) The problems are twofold: First, there's no reason to think we should give their opinions that much weight, given that they're just two random libertarian commentators; and second, as far as I can tell, they're replying to something that nobody else in the article is saying. That is, we have no sources asserting that Gamergate doesn't contain women or minorities, so we have only their personal opinions and perceptions of the conflict to indicate that this statement is important. They assert that they are answering some common argument by giving their opinions on Gamergate's demographics, but absent any actual sources outside their two opinion-pieces even touching on it as relevant, it feels like giving space to them here is giving their personal opinions WP:UNDUE weight. --Aquillion (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- We could say so much more about GamerGate if we had some demographic information but the nature of an online, decentralized, leaderless movement with no membership criteria and varying levels of participation prevents researchers from asserting exactly how diverse the group is. What is required is knowing how many women or minorities are participating compared to the total membership number and none of that information is available or is possible unless GamerGate evolves into a more structured organization. I know that I, for one, would be thrilled if we had some demographic data to incorporate into this article but that is unlikely to exist at this stage of the movement. Liz Read! Talk! 11:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- The wording of the Ysmall oung/Bokhari-paragraph was pretty carefully hedged by assigning it to specific individuals. We don't have any super-conclusive statistical evidence about male dominance or anything else either, but this fact is repeated all over the article. Most criticism regarding misogyny is aimed at males or assumes that it's mostly perpetrated by males. The "we've never said it's not this way"-argument seems unfair. Overall, I'm very much against giving undue weight to pro-Gamergate forum nonsense, but I don't see how this would fall under that category.
- Aquillion, what's the reason for singling out Young and Bokhari as "random libertarian commentators"? We've provided them all of two sentences on an issue which is a matter of opinion overall. How does that equate to "much weight"?
- Peter Isotalo 11:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- There are countless bloggers, pundits, and commentators who have posted opinion-pieces about the article's subject; our job as encyclopedia-writers is to parse from this the most relevant strains of thought (as well as comments from people directly related to it or particularly noteworthy in the field) and cover them in accordance to how they are represented in reliable source. Bokhari and Young's opinions don't fall into any of those categories -- they're commentators without any particular experience or expertise relevant to the topic, ones who openly say that they're interpreting the topic through their relatively WP:FRINGE strain of libertarian politics. This makes them generally inappropriate for the article. Of course there may be other commentators we could drop, and you should point them out if there's any you object to in particular, but I singled those two out because they don't particularly seem to represent any larger stream of thought in reliable sources beyond their own views, and because it feels like they were added back when people were using quotes from whatever commentators they could find to argue over the topic by proxy. We've cleaned it up and organized things a lot better since then, but in general I do feel that the article could use less focus on opinion-pieces from all sides. Most of the other ones, though, at least serve to characterize the general coverage of the topic or to provide in-depth analysis from well-known highly-credible sources, while eg. Young's opinion piece doesn't really serve a purpose beyond informing the reader of her personal opinions and views (which, again, if I read her right she is candidly saying are more about her libertarianism than about Gamergate.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- These two opinions have adequately been pov attributed, their opinions would only be undue if they were presented as fact which they are not. The reader is told from which political spectrum they come from giving the reader a context on how to weigh them Avono (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I dont think highlighting Young / Bokhari's "They are not all white guys!" is particularly relevant. Our article never makes that claim and I dont think any of the sources ever make that claim either. Its a pointless counter-argument to an argument that doesn't exist.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Not when we have an entire subsection on "Misogyny and antifeminism". Avono (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- "There's a girl in our hate group - we cannot be misogynist!!!!!" ??? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Not when we have an entire subsection on "Misogyny and antifeminism". Avono (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I dont think highlighting Young / Bokhari's "They are not all white guys!" is particularly relevant. Our article never makes that claim and I dont think any of the sources ever make that claim either. Its a pointless counter-argument to an argument that doesn't exist.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Overall, we've been quite stern about WP:RS and other policies with those who want to include all kinds of random opinions from YouTube. In this case, I'm not seeing policy-related arguments against inclusion of Young and Bokhari. The wording before this edit made a perfectly matter-of-fact statement that two reliable sources (out of God dozens and dozens) have made the argument that Gamergate people might be more diverse. It was a single sentence after an appropriately long explanation of the majority opinions. What's the point in removing that by referring to extended conclusions drawn from their opinion pieces?
- Peter Isotalo 14:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- This comment is not helpful, and does nothing to advance this article. Demographic information, among other issues raised by these pieces, are very relevant to the article, and these sorts of comments are not arguments against it. If you have a good, constructive argument against using them, please share them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- While demographics might be helpful, there are none and cannot be any as you cannot have demographics for a non entity. Young / Bokhari 's opinions on the matter are no more than guesses. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Any statement about the gender or minority makeup (beyond the fact that there ARE at least some women and minorities participating) would merely be a personal impression. This is especially true on Twitter, reddit and 8chan where 1) users are frequently anonymous and 2) you can not even rely on gendered usernames to be accurate. Liz Read! Talk! 15:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- We have plenty of similar claims in the article about various aspects of the movement. Is there a reason beyond the sources being more neutral toward GG that we should seek to exclude this, or should we start the work of excising similar guesses? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- If you have reason to believe a reliable source we have used is not reliable for this article, you're more than welcome to bring it up. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- This isn't an issue of a reliable source, it's about the supposed "guesses." Either reliable sources are used for such "guesses," or they're not. This picky-choosy stuff that seems to be motivated by position rather than claim is the problem. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- If you have reason to believe a reliable source is 'guessing' about something, you're more than welcome to bring it up, as other editors have here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- For example, the issue of the negative/positive tweets from a few weeks back. But this is about using this specific topic and the questionable protests in play. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- There was no "guessing" there. A reliable source who frequently analyzes popular sentiment hired a professional social media analytics firm and presented the results. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- For example, the issue of the negative/positive tweets from a few weeks back. But this is about using this specific topic and the questionable protests in play. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- If you have reason to believe a reliable source is 'guessing' about something, you're more than welcome to bring it up, as other editors have here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- This isn't an issue of a reliable source, it's about the supposed "guesses." Either reliable sources are used for such "guesses," or they're not. This picky-choosy stuff that seems to be motivated by position rather than claim is the problem. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- If you have reason to believe a reliable source we have used is not reliable for this article, you're more than welcome to bring it up. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- We have plenty of similar claims in the article about various aspects of the movement. Is there a reason beyond the sources being more neutral toward GG that we should seek to exclude this, or should we start the work of excising similar guesses? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Any statement about the gender or minority makeup (beyond the fact that there ARE at least some women and minorities participating) would merely be a personal impression. This is especially true on Twitter, reddit and 8chan where 1) users are frequently anonymous and 2) you can not even rely on gendered usernames to be accurate. Liz Read! Talk! 15:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- While demographics might be helpful, there are none and cannot be any as you cannot have demographics for a non entity. Young / Bokhari 's opinions on the matter are no more than guesses. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- (unindent) The gaming Community, industry and gamer identity are described as "male-dominated", "traditionally-male", "predominantly young male". There's also a long list of scathing opinions of the Gamergate movements, often with plenty of quotes. Rightfully so, in my view! Sexism is rampant and the male dominance is obvious. This is also recognized by the vast majority of commentators.
- And then we had a single mention of two dissenting voices regarding the composition of the Gamergate movement in a single sentence. This is now gone with the motivation that these particular opinions aren't confirmed by hard evidence. That's a rather uncompromising stance to take regarding minority opinions. Please reconsider this.
- Peter Isotalo 16:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- "male-dominated", "traditionally-male", "predominantly young male" do not in any way contradict or need to be balanced by "but there is probably a girl or two in there somewhere, too". There is no evidence that women played any major role in any part of GG: "male-dominated", "traditionally-male", "predominantly young male" are accurate reflections of the voices that have had any impact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- If we have a reliable source that can point out that there are, in fact, women involved in the movement, what reason would we exclude it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Neither our article nor any of the reliable sources we are using says "There are only boys involved" - so there is no reason to specifically call out "Hey there are some girls" - unless it is to attempt to make a point like "Hey there is a girl involved so we cannot be misogynistic!" - why do you think it is valuable? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- [7] [8] [9]. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- As Masem highlighted, the "male dominated" narrative has some holes in it upon deeper inspection. The article should clearly note that the movement itself is more diverse than perceived, as we have sources that demonstrate that obvious truth. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- 1) What holes? none of those links say as far as I can see says either "Gamergate is only boys" nor "Theres a large percentage of girls involved in gamergate". 2) "Male dominated" does not mean "There are no girls" any more than an "objective review" rates a game on how fun it is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- The cut text from Young's piece from the article was Although coverage has generally described Gamergate supporters as predominantly male, libertarian Cathy Young has said that she believes there are vocal female voices within it. in other words specifically addressing the preception of GG being male-dominated. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- (e/c) again, that takes a complete misreading of "male dominated" to be "only boys" and then takes some "vocal female voices" to be "significant level of female participation." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- That's not what the statement is saying; no one has said "males only" here. Young's point is that while GG has been characterized as male-dominated, she believes there are much larger female numbers in that population that the characterization "male-dominated" belies. That's a completely fair counterpoint to include. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- And what is her expertise in identifying the gender of anonymous twitter and chan posters that makes her unique interpretation one that should be recognized within the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- The same expertise that the rest of the press has used, which is none. No one has undertaken or demonstrated a complete attempt to quantify the population of the GG movement at all, certainly not to the point that they can factually state anything (whether this is do to the unwillingness to do so, or the difficulty in doing so, we don't know). It is perceived as male dominated from several factors (the misogynyistic nature of harassment, that the tactics are those associated with a male-dominated culture, that this is a reaction towards an increasing diversity of the gamer population that puts the traditional gamer male at a minority), and certainly this is a logical conclusion, but still remains a supposition with no factual evidence to back it up. Young's point, which is just as valid as every other reporters' point which is using what can be visible gleened from the public forums, is that she feels the population of females is more than what "male-dominated" implies. This point is completely appropriate to include as a counterpoint. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- What is your basis for the claim "the same expertise that the rest of the press has used, none"? And again, the fact that only Young is coming to that conclusion puts her interpretation seriously into the WP:UNDUE column-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- We'd have to really trim this article down if we were going to limit it to widely-held analyses. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have seen zero data that shows the estimated breakdown of the GG movement population by gender or any other statistic. As such, there is no evidence to back up the claim "male-dominated", and so we must state this as a claim by the press since the statement is contentious. A single sentence counterstatement is definitely not UNDUE weight, and Thargor rightly notes. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- the data that you have is irrelevant. The analysis from multiple reliable sources is what we go by, and present it in appropriate proportion to which it is held. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- The analysis is basically nonexistent. That's the point Masem correctly makes. We have a good claim from a reliable source that tries to break it down, and a lot of unsupported assertions. We go by the evidence, which is what is actually appropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- We do NOT have a "good claim from a reliable source " - we have a claim that is not supported by any expertise or data that varies widely from the other reliable sources. Thats clear WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Cathy Young is a well-known, well-regarded journalist making a claim based on data she's collected as part of her expertise that does not vary from any other reliable source's evidence. It's undue not to note it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- And again as the sole person who has come to this interpretation, how is it not inappropriate to include it?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- For the same reason other "sole" "interpretations" are included. Which is it going to be? Sole interpretations reported in reliable sources are okay, or not okay? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- If you have a specific "sole interpretation" that you think does not appropriately represent mainstream views, please identify it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Recognize that UNDUE does not say to omit opinions, just to make sure their weight given is proportional to viewpoints. One sentence from a noted commentator is completely in line with NPOV policy, and in fact more so required per NPOV to be impartial if such opinion clearly exists from someone that is an expert in this area (gender-related studies). --MASEM (t) 23:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Obvious fallacy that we need to include everyone. Of course we omit when the size of the group holding an opinion is non measurable. And counter to policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- So we can measure this, and it's sourced reliably to boot. Do you have an actual argument against inclusion here? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- As an objective source, to not include anything that is from the opposite side of the conflict is not appropriate. We aren't going every to achieve balance, but you cannot flat out omit or attempt to censor anything that is counter to the predominate point of view. That's not what NPOV nor FRINGE says. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- WP:V is not WP:FRINGE. It clearly says that just being verifiable is not a reason to include. And WP:NPOV sub WP:UNDUE is clear - we present the views as close as we can to follow the reliable sources. That one reliable sources has the view that "my personal opinion is that girls arent as small a portion of gamergate as everybody else presents" is a clear VERY minority view for which we need a very good reason other than "its verifiable". IF she came from an expertise in analyzing gender of anonymous postings, then that would be a reason to include. we need to include something that doesnt make gamergate look like its all the stereotypical socially maladjusted gamerboy is not a valid reason - it is in fact prohibited by policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Obvious fallacy that we need to include everyone. Of course we omit when the size of the group holding an opinion is non measurable. And counter to policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Recognize that UNDUE does not say to omit opinions, just to make sure their weight given is proportional to viewpoints. One sentence from a noted commentator is completely in line with NPOV policy, and in fact more so required per NPOV to be impartial if such opinion clearly exists from someone that is an expert in this area (gender-related studies). --MASEM (t) 23:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- If you have a specific "sole interpretation" that you think does not appropriately represent mainstream views, please identify it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- For the same reason other "sole" "interpretations" are included. Which is it going to be? Sole interpretations reported in reliable sources are okay, or not okay? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- And again as the sole person who has come to this interpretation, how is it not inappropriate to include it?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Cathy Young is a well-known, well-regarded journalist making a claim based on data she's collected as part of her expertise that does not vary from any other reliable source's evidence. It's undue not to note it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- We cannot say that RSes are wrong or counter their points in our words (that's OR, as outlined in the Newsweek article discuss before), but if they have not provided a means to judge their statements as factual, we are not required to take their statements as factually right (per WP:NPOV); instead simply presenting them as claims attributed to those sources. This stays true to the RSes and still will represent the predominate view, but avoid having WP make statements of fact that have no basis of evidence at all behind it. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- We do NOT have a "good claim from a reliable source " - we have a claim that is not supported by any expertise or data that varies widely from the other reliable sources. Thats clear WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- The analysis is basically nonexistent. That's the point Masem correctly makes. We have a good claim from a reliable source that tries to break it down, and a lot of unsupported assertions. We go by the evidence, which is what is actually appropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- the data that you have is irrelevant. The analysis from multiple reliable sources is what we go by, and present it in appropriate proportion to which it is held. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- What is your basis for the claim "the same expertise that the rest of the press has used, none"? And again, the fact that only Young is coming to that conclusion puts her interpretation seriously into the WP:UNDUE column-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- The same expertise that the rest of the press has used, which is none. No one has undertaken or demonstrated a complete attempt to quantify the population of the GG movement at all, certainly not to the point that they can factually state anything (whether this is do to the unwillingness to do so, or the difficulty in doing so, we don't know). It is perceived as male dominated from several factors (the misogynyistic nature of harassment, that the tactics are those associated with a male-dominated culture, that this is a reaction towards an increasing diversity of the gamer population that puts the traditional gamer male at a minority), and certainly this is a logical conclusion, but still remains a supposition with no factual evidence to back it up. Young's point, which is just as valid as every other reporters' point which is using what can be visible gleened from the public forums, is that she feels the population of females is more than what "male-dominated" implies. This point is completely appropriate to include as a counterpoint. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- And what is her expertise in identifying the gender of anonymous twitter and chan posters that makes her unique interpretation one that should be recognized within the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- That's not what the statement is saying; no one has said "males only" here. Young's point is that while GG has been characterized as male-dominated, she believes there are much larger female numbers in that population that the characterization "male-dominated" belies. That's a completely fair counterpoint to include. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- (e/c) again, that takes a complete misreading of "male dominated" to be "only boys" and then takes some "vocal female voices" to be "significant level of female participation." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- The cut text from Young's piece from the article was Although coverage has generally described Gamergate supporters as predominantly male, libertarian Cathy Young has said that she believes there are vocal female voices within it. in other words specifically addressing the preception of GG being male-dominated. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- 1) What holes? none of those links say as far as I can see says either "Gamergate is only boys" nor "Theres a large percentage of girls involved in gamergate". 2) "Male dominated" does not mean "There are no girls" any more than an "objective review" rates a game on how fun it is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Neither our article nor any of the reliable sources we are using says "There are only boys involved" - so there is no reason to specifically call out "Hey there are some girls" - unless it is to attempt to make a point like "Hey there is a girl involved so we cannot be misogynistic!" - why do you think it is valuable? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- If we have a reliable source that can point out that there are, in fact, women involved in the movement, what reason would we exclude it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- "male-dominated", "traditionally-male", "predominantly young male" do not in any way contradict or need to be balanced by "but there is probably a girl or two in there somewhere, too". There is no evidence that women played any major role in any part of GG: "male-dominated", "traditionally-male", "predominantly young male" are accurate reflections of the voices that have had any impact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think this has gone beyond article-related discussion. Could you consider focusing on content instead of one another's opinions?
- Peter Isotalo 18:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have followed GamerGate since late September and there are definitely women playing a role. From Christina Sommers to blogger Liana K, there have been women writing and talking about GamerGate in a positive way. I know gaming blog articles and YouTube videos aren't considered reliable sources except when they are not evaluating the arguments of what is stated but as evidence that these perspectives do, indeed, exist. As for male-dominated, one can easily find statistics from gaming associations that state that gamers are equally divided these days between men and women (partially due to mobile games). So, it would be simple to argue for the presence of women but for "male-dominated" claims, you'd have to track down more reliable sources. I believe that it is true but I'm not sure where that claim has been presented as a fact.
- Ironically, it was a misunderstanding of these gender dynamics that partially caused GamerGate. Due to the statistics of more women involved in gaming, those "Gamers are over" were pointing out that the stereotype of young teen male gamer no longer reflected reality. This made the #NotYourShield campaign a little ludicrous because the authors WERE saying that gaming scene is more diverse. Liz Read! Talk! 17:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Where has CHS said that she supports Gamergate? She has come out swinging against "feminists taking games away from boys" but thats not the same. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we can outright call her a Gamergate supporter, but she is absolutely opposed to those who are opposing Gamergate: [10] Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't particularly agree with either Young or Bokhari, especially Young , but I believe their libertarian views and criticism of liberal sentiment are of interest. I'm attempting a compromise wording focused more on opinions and views on reporting.
- Peter Isotalo 17:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think Liz's points above raises other points - 1) "misogyny in gaming" and "male-dominated" does not mean "there are no women in gaming". "misogyny in gaming" and "male-dominated" go to the power dynamic where women are attacked more. Trying to balance this with Young and Bokhari is wrong. 2) "stereotype of young teen male gamer no longer reflected reality" & "saying that gaming scene is more diverse" speak to diversity in gaming. Trying to balance this with Young and Bokhari is wrong. 3) Young and Bokhari are claiming diversity within GamerGate the context of this matters because part of that claim flies in the face of the analysis of #notyourshield. Unless Young and Bokhari have numbers to back up their opinion, I find it hard to justify including their opinion to address the idea of diversity of within GamerGate. 4) If only the pro-GamerGate side is claiming that the anti-GamerGate side is claiming that GamerGate is "male-dominated", and then Young and Bokhari are trying to rebut that idea, and then we, as Wiki editors, are setting up a strawman by proxy - an unsupported claim with responded to with an unsupported opinoin.
- Where has CHS said that she supports Gamergate? She has come out swinging against "feminists taking games away from boys" but thats not the same. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- In any case, before including Young and Bokhari, we had better figure out what they are response to. Because from the above debate, it's not clear there is a consensus on that. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- And a parallel analysis to the gender composition exists WRT political composition ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- focusing on "the press should be saying 'but theres girls too' " misses the key points these two are making in the arguments. Young is stating that those women who are involved with gamergate are being called out as "gender traitors" and Bokhari is criticizing the coverage in general, from the starting point of "theres always two sides".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Re: Young: I don't think we can use Young as the source for the point to her own counter-point. That's bordering on putting up a strawman argument. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Re: Bokhari: Which two sides? The one where GamerGate is about ethics? This is largely covered including Bokhari would be UNDUE weight. What are the two sides Bokhari says exists that isn't about the ethics argument? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Who knows what he meant by that overly simplistic way of viewing the world. You can ask him i guess. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Including quotes from Bokhari from his own articles looks like including OR. I'm going to remove it unless someone can argue for it's inclusion that does create UNDUE for his opinion and doesn't need his OR about GamerGate to support his conclusion. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- This is really getting hypocritical. There have been sources who called GamerGate 'misogynistic' etc in the gaming press (and that amount is quite broad although they never backed it up), yet when scholars state that statement isn't true (including scholars who have access to unofficial enquiries and polls), it suddenly isn't sufficient weight enough? Rightttttt.... MicBenSte (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, we should weight scholars in peer reviewed journals more heavily then blogs and political consultants. For example, Heron, Michael James, Belford, Pauline, and Goker, Ayse called it a "misogynist backlash." — Strongjam (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Huh? Not sure what you are saying, MicBenSte. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- This is really getting hypocritical. There have been sources who called GamerGate 'misogynistic' etc in the gaming press (and that amount is quite broad although they never backed it up), yet when scholars state that statement isn't true (including scholars who have access to unofficial enquiries and polls), it suddenly isn't sufficient weight enough? Rightttttt.... MicBenSte (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Including quotes from Bokhari from his own articles looks like including OR. I'm going to remove it unless someone can argue for it's inclusion that does create UNDUE for his opinion and doesn't need his OR about GamerGate to support his conclusion. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Who knows what he meant by that overly simplistic way of viewing the world. You can ask him i guess. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- focusing on "the press should be saying 'but theres girls too' " misses the key points these two are making in the arguments. Young is stating that those women who are involved with gamergate are being called out as "gender traitors" and Bokhari is criticizing the coverage in general, from the starting point of "theres always two sides".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- And a parallel analysis to the gender composition exists WRT political composition ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- In any case, before including Young and Bokhari, we had better figure out what they are response to. Because from the above debate, it's not clear there is a consensus on that. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Gamestar.de addition
"eines betrogenen Ex Freundes" = "a cheated exboyfriend" WP:BLP (and bad prose)? (NM. Has since been addressed since I first looked.) I would like to review the article, but it's behind a paywall. Ideas how to review it? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I object to the sentence that was added: "Gamergate supporters saw theses op-eds as a conspiracy to stifle their press criticism with a smear campaign which Michael Graf of Gamestar described as understandable but thought them to be an overreaction towards gamers who had overreacted to the overreaction of an ex-boyfriend." There is an elide part of the translation: "Dieser Eindruck ist nachvollziehbar, an eine Kampagne glauben wir aber nicht, sondern einfach an eine komplette Überreaktion. Eine Überreaktion auf die Überreaktion vieler Spieler auf die Überreaktion eines betrogenen Ex-Freundes." = "This impression is understandable, but we don't believe in this campaign, instead [we think] it is simply a complete overreaction - an overreaction to the overreaction of many gamers to the overreaction of a cheated-on ex-boyfriend." The key phrase that is missing is "but we do not believe it". I think the most that could be added without including "but we don't believe in this campaign" is "Gamestar thinks that GameGate is an overreaction". (And I don't think that's so interesting.) The sentence as added mangles the original opinion. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think the prose is atrocious, not sure if it works in German or not. Perhaps we could phrase it more as "an overreaction by all involved." or something like that. — Strongjam (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Works fine in German. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Translation Note: "an eine Kampagne glauben wir aber nicht" could be translated "but we do not give credence to the campaign" or "but we do not give credence to the campaign's existence". The sense of the sentence doesn't work in English quite right. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Translation Note2: betrogenen is "deluded" in the sense of "hoodwinked" the idiomatic translation is cheated-on. However, the cheated-on runs into WP:BLP ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@ForbiddenRocky: You added "not credible" (diff). The author says [...], statt einer Kampagne steckt aber wohl eher eine Überreaktion dahinter." – "eher" means "wahrscheinlicher", which translates to "more likely" or "more probable". He doesn't explicitly say "not credible". Adding that dependent clause emphasizes a part of the sentence that wasn't emphasized by the author. Further "eher" or "wahrscheinlicher" is a comparative adjective/adverb. Can you please revert your edit? -- Maklaan (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- This part: "an eine Kampagne glauben wir aber nicht" I think the people using auto translations are not understanding this phrase.ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ok the German part in the footnote does not say the overreaction is "not credible". Please add the complete quote to the footnote if it isn't accurate. However even with this taken into account, I'm not sure a verbatim translation of the German phrase is a best idea. How about: "This was described by GameStar as understandable overreaction." This phrase is better than what's there, however I'd probably be prefer for that quote to be gone altogether, I don't see what it adds. Cupidissimo (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- I would prefer to remove the whole thing all together. I think the content of that article is covered by the English sources, and this one bit is just an opinion. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ok the German part in the footnote does not say the overreaction is "not credible". Please add the complete quote to the footnote if it isn't accurate. However even with this taken into account, I'm not sure a verbatim translation of the German phrase is a best idea. How about: "This was described by GameStar as understandable overreaction." This phrase is better than what's there, however I'd probably be prefer for that quote to be gone altogether, I don't see what it adds. Cupidissimo (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- This part: "an eine Kampagne glauben wir aber nicht" I think the people using auto translations are not understanding this phrase.ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Explanation of Revert by Avono
Alex Lifschitz's twitter account is not verified and therefore not an acceptable source per WP:Twitter. I chose the wrong operation while trying to restore the wiki link to baphomet causing me to do the self-revert. Avono (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Good revert, I never noticed the account wasn't verified. Even if it was verified it would be undue weight for a self-published source in this article. — Strongjam (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Protection needed
Can an admin please protect Draft:Gamergate controversy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Edit - changed opinion. No longer supporting, I failed to spot the 'Draft'-concept. Also, I'm in need of sleep but my body isn't cooperating... MicBenSte (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- I was not a fan of the Draft that I saw a while ago but, TheRedPenOfDoom, was it really proper to delete the entire draft that editors had worked on? Has the material been moved anywhere else? Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- The history is still there, and always will be can't be deleted for attribution reasons. I don't think anyone was still working on it, but if so it's not hard to get it back. — Strongjam (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- No one has seriously touched it in two weeks. Thats 3 generations of sock accounts. There is no serious discussions about that version or attempting any other major restructuring. At a bare minimum it needs to be semi-protected. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's essentially a sandbox. It doesn't need to be protected from anything except blatant BLP violations. Try focusing on more important things.
- Peter Isotalo 23:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- No one has seriously touched it in two weeks. Thats 3 generations of sock accounts. There is no serious discussions about that version or attempting any other major restructuring. At a bare minimum it needs to be semi-protected. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- The history is still there, and always will be can't be deleted for attribution reasons. I don't think anyone was still working on it, but if so it's not hard to get it back. — Strongjam (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- I was not a fan of the Draft that I saw a while ago but, TheRedPenOfDoom, was it really proper to delete the entire draft that editors had worked on? Has the material been moved anywhere else? Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Question about statement in article
I was surprised to see this added in the Fine Young Capitalist section Early in the controversy, Gamergate supporters on 4chan, arguing that it would make them "look really good" and make them "PR-untouchable". When I checked the two sources, I couldn't find this statement supported. They look like direct quotes from a post on 4chan. Do these quotes come from a different article than the ones cited (an article by Kain and one on TFYC). Thanks Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- They're from the Vice source at the end of the next sentence. A little odd, since they're direct quotes, so maybe the source should be moved to the end of the first sentence? Woodroar (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- There's no mention whatsoever in Kain's Forbes article and in the interview with TFYC. Also an quick Google search, including the TFYC blog, point also to /v/ as having initiated the fundraising, hence why /v/ did get the option to design an game avatar (which became Vivian James). There are mentions of /pol/ having also donated to the raise (something from what I recall is right), but this 'late on the party' insertion which also got immidiately used to override earlier sources, is strange to say the least. I'm not against making it an 'shared' /v/ - /pol/ quote, which would be near the truth, yet the quote originally used in the first line is an aberration. MicBenSte (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't checked out the Vice article, Woodroar, but they are remarkable quotes and if they come from the Vice article, it should be cited at that statement. It looks like this has been done. Aside from reliable sources debates, I'm always skeptical about quotes from online message boards or social media that seem to be taken at random. They can be useful to use as an example or if they are tied to a particular user under discussion but it can't be asserted that quotes like this reflect a majority opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that, if we're going to keep the quotes, the source should follow that sentence. I support keeping them, but I wouldn't be heartbroken if consensus goes the other way. I do feel that they were removed by User:MicBenSte for spurious reasons, however. In MicBenSte's edit summary and comments above, it appears that the quotes were removed because they don't appear in the Forbes article and TFYC interview, but that's irrelevant: three sources can support the same or different claims, and in this case the Vice source adequately supported the quotes. I almost missed that the quotes were removed, in fact, because I saw "Editing in Vice" in the edit summary and assumed that MicBenSte had simply moved the ref. I'm inclined to revert but this is as good a time as any to discuss whether we want those quotes there in the first place. Woodroar (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article text was erroneous. The Vice article attributes the quotes to " /pol/, 4chan’s politics forum" and "One user" (from 4chan?). I missed this on the first read, but the source does say "Gamers on 4chan are pouring time and energy into backing a project that sponsors female-created video games" earlier in the article. Still, the source does not explictly say they are GamerGate supporters, only that they are 4chan gamers. In fact the Vice article never mentions GamerGate. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- That article was published August 28; the Gamergate hashtag had only been tweeted for the first time the day before, so it hadn't yet been widely-adopted as the title for the controversy and couldn't have been used to describe it. The context, however, makes it clear that it's describing what would eventually be called Gamergate, and the later article on it (which I linked below) uses the term explicitly. The donation drive was obviously not initially organized under the #Gamergate hashtag or by self-described Gamergate supporters (because, again, the term didn't exist when it happened), but I think that the Vice article is sufficient to source the fact that a large part of the early organizing, at least for this drive, was on /pol/, not just /v/. --Aquillion (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Here's another source (from Fastcompany) highlighting the ' "We’d be PR-untouchable" quote (and characterizing it as one of the "initial posts on 4chan organizing the drive.") It's tricky to trace a lot of what's going on with Gamergate because it's planned and organized on forums like this (which we can't cite directly), but we can definitely cover things from there that have been highlighted as relevant by multiple reputable publications like this. --Aquillion (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, how about we use Fastcodesign to attribute to GamerGate supporters. If you want to attribute it to /pol/ you can use Vice. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- My big issue is not whether in August the posters at 4chan /v/ board can be called GamerGaters (although that is debatable) but rather using these specific quotations which makes gamers participating in these charity efforts appear manipulative, cynical and self-serving. I think those quotes can be used if they are attributed to an individual but not "GamerGate supporters" as a group. Liz Read! Talk! 12:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- All right, I tried another version, using both sources, making it clear that it was just focusing on specific posters, and avoiding attributing it to Gamergate supporters (which is an unclear category, since not all the sources use the term for the drive.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Reliable Source
I apologize if this has been debated already but is I'm ashamed of progressive game culture and here's why from PocketGamer a reliable source? Because it looks like an opinion piece on an ordinary gaming blog that I'm unfamiliar with. What is the role of opinion pieces, especially in videogame journalism for this article? Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't a fan of its inclusion- it's an incredibly dated piece given the depths to which the controvery's supporters have sunken, and I'd prefer we use more recent, knowledgeable pieces. I don't think using it as a source adds to the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Forgive my dull ignorance, but other than the fact that it's 6 months old, what makes this source unreliable? Meşteşugarul - U 22:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- One would imagine that with 6 months passed an opinion would change. Let's make a comparison: Which is more accurate, reviews of a video game before its release, or after its release? Which is more accurate, opinion pieces on a controversy prior to it really starting, or after it's been under way for a long time? Being that old after so many things have happened in this controversy very much makes it unreliable for an article on the controversy as it is now. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, I completely understand where you are coming from, Peter. Given your input, I think we should try and find a PocketGamer article denouncing GamerGate from later on. Had they not done so at any point past October 2014, I think it'd be safe to believe that at least this particular author is still of the same opinion. There are sources from Wikipedia that by this definition are dated. [1] [2] [3]. Now, please don't regard this as an attack, since we still agree. This is no contradiction to what you say. The sources I have shown here are still valid sources (at least in my professional opinion) because the publications seem to have not changed their stance since the articles were published. Should this be true of PocketGamer, then I'd say it's safe to say that its stance still has not changed since the publication of that piece. Meşteşugarul - U 23:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid it's not entirely within Wikipedia's policies to assume what stance a publication, or a writer for that publication, would take in absence of any relevant, reliable source of their opinions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Point taken, Peter. Thank you dearly for clarifying that. I'm still unable to put my finger on whether the piece should not be a source, though. What I wanted to say is that if we find another article from PocketGamer speaking negatively about GamerGate, something like this could be said: "On October whatever, a piece appeared on PocketGamer lending support to GamerGate. However, on December whatever 2014, another piece from the publication has said, 'something something GamerGate something negative, something'." Meşteşugarul - U 23:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Absolutely, tracking the perception of Gamergate and how it has changed in this way would be a great addition to the article, and I would commend any effort to work on it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Point taken, Peter. Thank you dearly for clarifying that. I'm still unable to put my finger on whether the piece should not be a source, though. What I wanted to say is that if we find another article from PocketGamer speaking negatively about GamerGate, something like this could be said: "On October whatever, a piece appeared on PocketGamer lending support to GamerGate. However, on December whatever 2014, another piece from the publication has said, 'something something GamerGate something negative, something'." Meşteşugarul - U 23:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid it's not entirely within Wikipedia's policies to assume what stance a publication, or a writer for that publication, would take in absence of any relevant, reliable source of their opinions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, I completely understand where you are coming from, Peter. Given your input, I think we should try and find a PocketGamer article denouncing GamerGate from later on. Had they not done so at any point past October 2014, I think it'd be safe to believe that at least this particular author is still of the same opinion. There are sources from Wikipedia that by this definition are dated. [1] [2] [3]. Now, please don't regard this as an attack, since we still agree. This is no contradiction to what you say. The sources I have shown here are still valid sources (at least in my professional opinion) because the publications seem to have not changed their stance since the articles were published. Should this be true of PocketGamer, then I'd say it's safe to say that its stance still has not changed since the publication of that piece. Meşteşugarul - U 23:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- One would imagine that with 6 months passed an opinion would change. Let's make a comparison: Which is more accurate, reviews of a video game before its release, or after its release? Which is more accurate, opinion pieces on a controversy prior to it really starting, or after it's been under way for a long time? Being that old after so many things have happened in this controversy very much makes it unreliable for an article on the controversy as it is now. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Forgive my dull ignorance, but other than the fact that it's 6 months old, what makes this source unreliable? Meşteşugarul - U 22:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Liz asks, is Pocket Gamer a reliable source? The article is indeed an op-ed from a freelance columnist, are we are using it only as the source for the opinions of that columnist. Op-Eds are reliable sources for the opinions expressed in the op-ed: if (say) Abraham Lincoln publishes an opinion piece decrying slavery, that's a reliable source that Lincoln decried slavery. The source satisfies WP:RS. But is the opinion of this individual partisan significant and is it given due weight? And, at an even more basic level, is that opinion correctly represented here? I think the summary misstates the primary thrust of his column which is not that GamerGate is correct or deserves sympathy, but that the methods adopted by its opponents are not as effective as other methods might be. His point is not that the progressive environment is toxic, but rather that the tactic of blocking Twitter harassers and ignoring sea lions fails to actually effect change. The current use in the article misrepresents the source and must be changed.
One alternative is to decide that one freelancer’s October opinion on tactics is not very important and need not be covered here. Another would be to restate the main thrust of the op-ed to something along the lines of "Carter Dotson suggested that the widespread progressive resolve to block GamerGate advocates on Twitter created a toxic environment, and that diversity in computer games could be better advanced through hiring policy and by broader distribution of game-creation tools." But the current citation can't stand. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm absolutely opposed to giving this 6 month old opinion piece its own sentence. Seeing as the current summary I've given of this and Nathaniel's piece is inaccurate/misplaced, how might I improve it? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Peter, I have done so already and the changes are pending.Meşteşugarul - U 00:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- I would've preferred giving it more time for discussion. We'll see how everybody finds the summary as it is. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- My sincerest apologies. We can undo my changes if there is enough precedence to do so. For the sake of transparency, Peter, you can see the diff here.Meşteşugarul - U 00:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Uhm... I just noticed that I left in Nathaniel Given's piece as a source. I think I should remove the citation to the sentence in question. What say you? Meşteşugarul - U 00:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- I would've preferred giving it more time for discussion. We'll see how everybody finds the summary as it is. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Peter, I have done so already and the changes are pending.Meşteşugarul - U 00:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- PeterTheFourth is, I think, right on both counts: we should discuss before rewriting, and we shouldn't use this as an excuse to give Dotson's editorial undue weight. (I'm not sure Dotson's piece had any influence at all; Wikipedia's citation seems to be its chief Google hit.) For the nonce, I have reverted to the previous sentence:
- Commentators such as Nathaniel Givens and Carter Dotson have described the movement as a reaction to an increasingly progressive environment in video game culture, which they described as "aggressive" and "toxic"
- We might try something along the lines of
- Many commentators offered advice to Gamergate and its critics; Nathaniel Givens decried an "aggressive" progressive environment in video game culture while Carter Dotson promoted greater engagement with, and distribution of game-creation software too, a more diverse creative community."
- Of course, this formulation will be resisted by the GG crowd here because it removes Dotson from the chorus of GamerGate sympathizers, but in reality his sympathy is limited to a brief preliminary aside. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- As it stands right now, I think it needs no further improvement, but that's just my bias for my own edits speaking. I'll give you my opinion, though, Mark. I think your sentence has a little more merit, since it includes Givens' statements. Meşteşugarul - U 00:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Possible new source from PandoDaily
Not sure about the reliability of this article or if there's a place for it here but it does seem interesting how GamerGate seems to is be a destination to recruit new plaintiffs for a Gawker lawsuit. Court docs: Lawyers for Gawker interns plan to find new plaintiffs by spamming Gamergate on Reddit. GamerPro64 05:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Instead of using that source, you could use the United States District Court's own document. None of the claims that have been made in the court document on PandoDaily exist in the original filing on the 15th of September, 2014. Meşteşugarul - U 18:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Court documents are generally considered primary sources and the things that can be sourced to them are quite limited. See e.g. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 19#Are court documents reliable sources?. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Requested move 14 February 2015
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Opposition to this is overwhelming. Regardless of merit, it has no hope of gaining consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Gamergate controversy → Gamergate movement – It's time to discuss this for real. As talk in the past and archives has shown, there is more play for "movement" than "controversy," and sources do not boil it down to a controvery, but a movement with substantially controversial elements. Because of the evidence and because of POV concerns, this should move to the correct movement page. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. If it wasn't for the harassment, sexism and other destructive behavior, mainstream media wouldn't have cared one bit about Gamergate. You seem to forget that ethics in a niche of entertainment journalism is a pretty insignificant issue in the grand scheme of things. Peter Isotalo 00:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think "movement" is the correct word, but I do think "controversy" is a loaded term and I would support movement to something neutral. I would point out that if not for the Ant of the same name, this would never have resided at Gamergate controversy in the first place. Koncorde (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - I know of no RS that use the term movement. If you can provide RS calling this a movement and not a controversy, I would change my mind. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Just from the first page of Google News: [11] [12] [13] [14]. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- You should probably look at the sources before you post them as items we should follow:
- "Adam Baldwin will be appearing at this year's Supanova Pop Culture Expos in Perth and Sydney after all, but don't even think to ask about the controversy which threatened his visit. ... over claims he had advanced the GamerGate movement, an internet firestorm which reportedly lead to harassment, rape and death threats"
- huge surprise that Gamergate would be the basis for the next 'ripped from the headlines"' story on Law & Order: SVU The controversy has seen video game players harassing women to the point of death threats (one would note that SVU is "Sexual Victims Unit")
- " harassed by the Gamergate movement"
- Quinn’s abuse, at the hands of the nascent anti-feminist Gamergate movement
- If those are the sources that "prove" its a movement, what the prove is that it is a harassment movement. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- You've made your POV exceptionally clear on what you think the movement entails, but the fact remains that you're simply showing it's a movement. That's why the article should be titled as such. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- If your next request move is to Gamergate harassment movement based on the sources, I will support that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- No, talking about the harassment at the proper page title, Gamergate movement, is the NPOV way of handling things. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- NPOV means following the sources. The sources you provided support "controversy" or "harassment movement". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- The sources I provided, as well as the majority of available reliable sources as far as we can tell, describe the topic as "Gamergate movement." Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- the sources you provided, as shown above, describe it as a controversy and as a harassment movement. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- As a movement, yes, but I repeat myself. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- yes, you keep repeating yourself, but not providing any sources that when they use the term "movement" are not classifying it as a "harassment movement". Per the sources, if moved to "Gamergate movement", the lead sentence describing it would be "Gamergate is a harassment movement". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- The evidence speaks for itself and does not support your claim. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- yes, you keep repeating yourself, but not providing any sources that when they use the term "movement" are not classifying it as a "harassment movement". Per the sources, if moved to "Gamergate movement", the lead sentence describing it would be "Gamergate is a harassment movement". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- As a movement, yes, but I repeat myself. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- the sources you provided, as shown above, describe it as a controversy and as a harassment movement. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- The sources I provided, as well as the majority of available reliable sources as far as we can tell, describe the topic as "Gamergate movement." Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- NPOV means following the sources. The sources you provided support "controversy" or "harassment movement". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- No, talking about the harassment at the proper page title, Gamergate movement, is the NPOV way of handling things. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- If your next request move is to Gamergate harassment movement based on the sources, I will support that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- You've made your POV exceptionally clear on what you think the movement entails, but the fact remains that you're simply showing it's a movement. That's why the article should be titled as such. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- You should probably look at the sources before you post them as items we should follow:
- There are very few that have called it outright "the Gamergate controversy" as well. A (brief) search of our RS article titles show only 3 of them using the word to summarise the events that way. Many more have simply referred to it as Gamergate or #Gamergate. Koncorde (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Second link doesn't use "movement", but does use "controversy". Seems there are many RS for "controversy" (The Verge, The Guardian, International Business Times, PC Mag,
KQED (part of NPR), TechCrunch, The Independent). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)- We have to be careful there - a couple of those use controversy because they link to the wikipedia article of that name. Koncorde (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching that. Striking KQED link (that's the only one I see linking to Wikipedia). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- And, for reference, my limited checking was done by title of articles. Admittedly most technology websites don't have to contend with the Ant for simplicity of reference. Koncorde (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Even with this in mind, a Google News search on both terms shows more for movement than controversy even with points to this article. No, Google News is not the final arbiter, but it's quite clearly a movement. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching that. Striking KQED link (that's the only one I see linking to Wikipedia). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- We have to be careful there - a couple of those use controversy because they link to the wikipedia article of that name. Koncorde (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Second link doesn't use "movement", but does use "controversy". Seems there are many RS for "controversy" (The Verge, The Guardian, International Business Times, PC Mag,
- Oppose. Some sources do mention the "movement", but only when struggling to explain what Gamergate is and how everyone responsible is anonymous. The focus of reliable sources is the controversy itself, the events that happened and the persons involved. Woodroar (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- The focus of the reliable sources we opt to use is the controversy surrounding one aspect of the movement. This doesn't mean it's not a movement. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have no problems with calling Gamergate a "movement". The term itself means little. But the Gamergate movement is simply not the subject of virtually any reliable sources, which means it's not a particularly notable movement as far as we're concerned. On the other hand, reliable sources write a lot about the controversy and events and people who are getting harassed, which is why this article exists. Woodroar (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. It can't reliably be called a movement if it has no organisation, established goals, or leader. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- This is not an argument. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: the only clear evidence for the existence of the movement is its record of harassment. This has been discussed before at considerable length, and was rejected. "Controversy" is actually quite neutral. GamerGate is chiefly known for threatening women in the computer industry with assault, rape, and death, and so a case could be made for "Conspiracy." A case could be made as well that GamerGate exists only a a hashtag, so "GamerGate Hashtag" might make sense. A ‘movement"is typically "a group of people working together to advance shared political, social or artistic ideas," but always involves identifiable individuals: the American Labor Movement (Debs, Gompers, and followers) or the Civil Rights Movement (Medgar, Martin, and Malcolm), or the Beats Movement (Kerouac, Ginsburg, Burroughs). Offhand, I can't think of any precedent for a "movement" in which one cannot name a single adherent or representative, much less point to a charter or manifesto. The proposer may aspire to be part of a movement, or even to found one, but the sources report a campaign of harassment most charitably described as a Controversy, not anything like a movement. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- There is countless evidence about the existence of the movement independent of the harassment that has occurred. This is not a true statement in any way. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- if by "countless" you mean "0" - a number that you cannot count to, then yes. If you mean "countless" in its traditional meaning, then please provide some of these "countless" stories that cover gamergate without any coverage of the harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support. What they're chiefly known for is irrelevant to how we classify them. To use an example from recent discussion (the Westboro Baptist Church) and paraphrasing Peter's quote above: "If it weren't for the funeral protests, homophobia and other destructive behavior, mainstream media wouldn't have cared one bit about the WBC" -- and yet, we do not call the article "The Westboro Baptist Church Controversy." Instead, when considering how wikipedia should define leaderless movements the comparison to Occupy is apt and the test, given we refer to Occupy as a movement, is whether Gamergate has more or less "officiality" than Occupy. Gamergate has a website, a hashtag, a web forum (with over 25K members), a press pack, logos, a video game character -- all "official", all reported in RSs -- so they at least equal Occupy in that regard. I would add, as has been mentioned, were "Gamergate" not already taken it would have been an obvious, uncontroversial choice. It seems the difference in definition between "Gamergate" and "Gamergate Movement" is less than between "Gamergate" and "Gamergate Controversy" and we should choose the one closer to the uncontroversial ideal. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)— EncyclopediaBob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- None of those things are "official" in any sense of the term. Indeed the website has a disclaimer on it saying "In no way are we an official GamerGate website." — Strongjam (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- In the literal sense of the word I agree with you completely -- that's why my first usage was in quotes (and I'll quote the 2nd.) It's impossible for a leaderless, unofficial movement to have anything strictly official. But in the sense of comparison to Occupy, the Gamergate members and material are no more or less official, so the relevant comparison is in quantity of membership and material. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- As pointed out in the threads above, Occupy Wall Street was notable and received media attention without ever engaging in any controversy equivalent to Gamergate harassment. No such coverage exists of Gamergate.
- Peter Isotalo 11:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that the occupation of Wall Street wasn't / isn't a controversial act? Koncorde (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- My wording was "controversy equivalent to Gamergate harassment". I'm saying that Occupy (which is more than physical occupation of New York streets) was and is notable for more than malicious methods. And on top of that, there's the public nature of the protests, tons of notable supporters and clearly stated aims. I don't see the relevance of your question.
- Peter Isotalo 11:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that the occupation of Wall Street wasn't / isn't a controversial act? Koncorde (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- In the literal sense of the word I agree with you completely -- that's why my first usage was in quotes (and I'll quote the 2nd.) It's impossible for a leaderless, unofficial movement to have anything strictly official. But in the sense of comparison to Occupy, the Gamergate members and material are no more or less official, so the relevant comparison is in quantity of membership and material. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- None of those things are "official" in any sense of the term. Indeed the website has a disclaimer on it saying "In no way are we an official GamerGate website." — Strongjam (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment "Gamergate (hashtag)" seems more appropriate to me then "Gamergate movement". Although I think controversy is just fine. — Strongjam (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- I would support Gamergate (hashtag) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's an improvement but "hashtag" ignores the 8chan and reddit boards, where most organizing and discussion take place. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not against this as an alternative, but definitely not my first choice. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- I would support Gamergate (hashtag) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose According to pretty much all the coverage in reliable sources, GamerGate is notable almost solely because of its controversial aspects. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose GamerGate is a movement inasmuch as it's a hate movement. Controversy is a commodious and accurate term for this row (as the Brits would say). kencf0618 (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. "Gamergate controversy" is preferable as it is neutral. "Gamergate campaign" is used most often by those working against sexism in gaming, or against the harassment of women by gamers. "Gamergate movement" is used most often by gamers defending sexism in games, and denying or downplaying the harassment. We would be grossly in error if we choose the favorite term of one side over the other. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- The problem with "Gamergate controversy" is that it is quite clearly not neutral. It takes a clear position on the situation that violates NPOV. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- The term "controversy" isn't partial to anything since it just implies disagreement, of which there is plenty. Peter Isotalo 12:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- The problem with "Gamergate controversy" is that it is quite clearly not neutral. It takes a clear position on the situation that violates NPOV. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cullen328. I also could be persuaded by "hashtag," however, with the right arguement and sourcing. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS (TALK) 02:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose As long as it's described as misogyny and harassment campaign, it's a fringe and tiny group. I don't understand opposers that wish to describe it as a widespread campaign of misogyny and harassment but oppose "movement." We could have a separate GamerGate Movement article outside the small group of trolls that explains the issues of journalism, feminism and gaming without all the mansplaining that goes on now. --03:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support. If a group is unworthy of being covered, perhaps we shouldn't cover it. That it receives negative coverage is not a reason to give it a confusing name. The title should reflect what the article is about. For example, the article discusses pro- and anti-Gamergate factions, as well as "supporters" and "opponents." This makes sense only if you think of Gamergate as a movement. No one is pro-controversy or a supporter of controversy. The eigenvector (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- while the depth and detail of our coverage this harassment by internet trolls is certainly an example of WP:BIAS given the depth and detail of our coverage of, say the leaders of countries of Africa, there is nothing that says an article must be about a "group" . see Category:Events, Category:Memes, Category:Conspiracy theories, Category:Controversies, Category:Misogyny. what has been covered has been the harassment which lead to a discussion about the deeper issues of sexism/gender bias in gaming- not the "group" which denies that the actions that have been covered are actually emanating from it, in essence, establishing the non-notability of the "group" from their own perspective.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. Regardless of how well (or not) it's served its stated purpose, and regardless of where the harassment is coming from, last I checked, there weren't enough RSs covering said purpose for us to write about it, and the only notable thing here is the harassment. Like many others here, however, I wouldn't oppose moving the article to "Gamergate (hashtag)" or something similar, if only to reduce (even slightly) the confusion about its subject. Random (?) 07:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - I first came to this article upon noticing a pending change in need of review; during a session of recent changes patrol. Prior to that, the only Gamergate (controversy) I was aware of was the Arbcom brouhaha, of which; I took in no details. Without bias, the pending change was resolved, and I gave a good faith effort to copyedit the lead, which introduced a sentence that read: 'The leaderless, amorphous group that acted under the hashtag has become known as the "Gamergate movement".' Rightfully, that statement has been removed as it did not comport well with the sources. With my face in my palms, I apologize for the synthesis that statement introduced. As clearly as it is inappropriate to make such a statement in the lead, it seems that much more inappropriate as the article's title. The arguments above augment that clarity and I therefor do oppose the move to Gamergate movement. I do think there are good arguments for moving the page however, and suggest Gamergate (controversy); using controversy merely to disambiguate the title from Gamergate.--John Cline (talk) 08:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Or how about Gamergate Harassment Campaign? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)— ForbiddenRocky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Funny. Meşteşugarul - U 17:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Definitely a loaded term. And if you can have a "campaign" surely you can have a "movement". Koncorde (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose It's not noteworthy outside of the harassment. Cupidissimo (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- strongest oppose as a "movement" it is meaningless and non notable. it is only notable for the controversy it has engendered. and we have multiple reliable sources looking at the unorganized, leaderless rabble and saying, "nope. its not a movement"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Why not just move the ant page to Gamergate (ant), and have this as Gamergate? At the point we are now I'm fairly certain if you asked a random person what Gamergate is, they'd be far more likely to mention the hashtag than the ant.Bosstopher (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- because in the grand scheme of things, this troll harassment campaign will be forgotten in a few years and gamergate ants will still be studied and discussed in a hundred years. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. I actually would rather this Wikipedia page not exist at all, but I think that "controversy" is the fairest way to describe this whole ordeal, although the way in which we go about describing such controversy is questionable at best. I did not want to get involved in this, and I probably will continue to avoid touching the subject, since I think that any good faith edits from a neutral point of view may get me sanctioned. Meşteşugarul - U 17:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose This can be revisited when recentism has passed. Until then this is a controversy considering the claims made by both sides. Avono (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- This right here. I can agree with this. Meşteşugarul - U 17:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's clear that all sources are covering it as a controversy; it's not clear that even a majority of them are covering it as a movement. --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- As noted above, this is clearly untrue. Most reliable sources call it a movement while discussing the controversy surrounding parts of it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- No, no, that's not what you showed above! You were responding to someone who said that nobody was referring to it as a movement (which I disagree with, yeah), but I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that "most reliable sources" are covering it as a coherent movement; and I definitely feel that controversy, in that respect, is more all-encompassing term (since all reliable sources, as far as I can tell, are covering it as an internet controversy.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- You can disagree, but the evidence is clearly not in your favor. Furthermore, when you say "all sources are covering it as a controversy," that is not true. Most of the sources we're using here are, but we're not using all the available reliable sources to their full weighted extent, either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think there's enough evidence to doubt your assertions about coverage above, anyway. Going over the article's sources, there are a lot that don't cover the subject, in particular, as a movement, including here, here, here, here, here, and here, just to start. And this one describes it as a 'movement' in scare quotes, showing that they find the descriptor controversial. Many of them cover it as a hashtag, as a mob, as an event, and so on, while many others emphasize that they have trouble categorizing it or describing exactly what it is. I feel that 'controversy' adequately unifies all of this coverage without discarding any of it, while titling it as a 'movement' would implicitly downplay the sources I linked and many like them (many of which are some of the highest-quality sources we have in the article.) Though I dislike rigidly dividing sources up according to this distinction, even the sources that I would roughly characterize as 'favorable' to Gamergate clearly seem to characterize it as a controversy (describing it as an issue with two sides, or as an ongoing culture war, or in similar terms.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- There's really no evidence to make me doubt the assertion that it's a movement that is controversial, no. That there has been selective use of sources is a problem with this article, yes, but for NPOV purposes there really isn't another option but to move it, and the opposition rationales thus far are extremely weak, if not outright counterfactual. We handle no other topic like the way we handle this one. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Quote: "Most of the sources we're using here are, but we're not using all the available reliable sources to their full weighted extent, either." I see this as a problem, honestly. There were reliable sources introduced by some, but they were immediately deleted and the diffs were later removed from the archives (removing evidence). The state of the handling of this article is deplorable at best, pernicious at worst. There are, in my honest opinion, too many editors with a horse in this race for anything productive to come out of the article.Meşteşugarul - U 19:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- If links were removed and rev-deleted it was because of BLP concerns for linking to unreliable sources not to "remove evidence." — Strongjam (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- This is sadly too true. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think there's enough evidence to doubt your assertions about coverage above, anyway. Going over the article's sources, there are a lot that don't cover the subject, in particular, as a movement, including here, here, here, here, here, and here, just to start. And this one describes it as a 'movement' in scare quotes, showing that they find the descriptor controversial. Many of them cover it as a hashtag, as a mob, as an event, and so on, while many others emphasize that they have trouble categorizing it or describing exactly what it is. I feel that 'controversy' adequately unifies all of this coverage without discarding any of it, while titling it as a 'movement' would implicitly downplay the sources I linked and many like them (many of which are some of the highest-quality sources we have in the article.) Though I dislike rigidly dividing sources up according to this distinction, even the sources that I would roughly characterize as 'favorable' to Gamergate clearly seem to characterize it as a controversy (describing it as an issue with two sides, or as an ongoing culture war, or in similar terms.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- You can disagree, but the evidence is clearly not in your favor. Furthermore, when you say "all sources are covering it as a controversy," that is not true. Most of the sources we're using here are, but we're not using all the available reliable sources to their full weighted extent, either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- No, no, that's not what you showed above! You were responding to someone who said that nobody was referring to it as a movement (which I disagree with, yeah), but I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that "most reliable sources" are covering it as a coherent movement; and I definitely feel that controversy, in that respect, is more all-encompassing term (since all reliable sources, as far as I can tell, are covering it as an internet controversy.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- As noted above, this is clearly untrue. Most reliable sources call it a movement while discussing the controversy surrounding parts of it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Aquillion, especially since by far the majority of sources that do mention the stated goals of Gamergate supporters go on to also mention the negative aspects associated with it. 3-sphere (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose One can't call a decentralized group of people, spread over many social media platforms and forums, united only by the use of a hashtag, a "movement". A movement implies some degree of organization and common purpose or goals and GamerGaters have gone out of their way to say that they have neither. A movement also has to have some criteria that establishes membership...if everyone is or can be a member, you don't have a group or movement. Bottom line, a movement needs some definition and GamerGate lacks that in spades. I think they would have accomplished more if they had some structure but that opinion is neither here not there. Right now, GamerGate is a hashtag, a debate, an event. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Precisely this. Meşteşugarul - U 00:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's not the movement part that's notable. I would be willing to consider a move from "Gamergate controversy" to "Gamergate attacks", but I suspect that wouldn't please the GG supporters any better. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support* This article is not about the #gamergate controversy or any controversy. Articles about controversies describe (at least) two points of view, and this article presents only one. If it is to stay here, it must be written as other articles about controversies are written. Chrisrus (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- What two points of view? "Harassment is bad" vs "Harassment is good" ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - Whether or not you would call gamergate a movement, the controversy is the notable subject that is covered in reliable sources and that seems to be the topic of this article. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Gamer identity: 'Within a day'
Hi! I'm removing the reinsertion of 'within a day' from the third paragraph under the Gamer Identity heading in Social and Cultural Implications. I sincerely do not understand why it's important that the article include this, given both the fact that we already have 'shortly following', making the phrasing 'within a day' is redundant, and that this phrasing is not used or noted as important by our sources. If you'd like to reinsert it, please explain here why it's important. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with you as well, and have reverted once, PeterTheFourth. There is no need to discuss this factoid, unless reliable, independent sources discuss it in enough detail to justify its inclusion under due weight. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've re-added it, happy to explain. Its relevance is to this sentence later in the paragraph:
Gamergate supporters saw these op-eds as a conspiracy to stifle their criticism of the press with a smear campaign...
Gamergate supporters view their simultaneous publication as evidence of a coordinated effort or "conspiracy" as we call it. Cullen328, regarding your comment on an RS for publication dates, the articles themselves are the source; see publication dates. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)- Is there a particular reason 'within a day' is necessary where 'shortly following' does not suffice, Bob? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sure. Other than precision (which is always good), the more synchronous the timing the more clearly the reader understands GG's motivations for believing the effort was coordinated. If the articles were published all within a minute, certainly you'd agree that's relevant to our later claim that GG viewed this as a coordinated effort; within the same week, maybe not -- rather than interpret that ourselves, it's better to present the facts as accurately as possible and allow the reader to interpret them. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm really not seeing the specific need for this (redundant) phrasing. Is it an important point in the sources we're using? Do the sources we cite for GG's motivation in believing this was a conspiracy cite that they were created 'within days' as a reason for their paranoia? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sure. Other than precision (which is always good), the more synchronous the timing the more clearly the reader understands GG's motivations for believing the effort was coordinated. If the articles were published all within a minute, certainly you'd agree that's relevant to our later claim that GG viewed this as a coordinated effort; within the same week, maybe not -- rather than interpret that ourselves, it's better to present the facts as accurately as possible and allow the reader to interpret them. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Is there a particular reason 'within a day' is necessary where 'shortly following' does not suffice, Bob? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
No reliable source has commented that said publications were "within a day." In addition, EB's list of sources are not anywhere "nearly a dozen," nor are they all "op-eds," as two are merely personal blogs. Hipocrite (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Peter: your initial concern seemed to be that timing of publication wasn't relevant. If I haven't sufficiently addressed that concern, let's continue discussion. Hipocrite, the source that describes the timing (Auerbach) uses "concurrently" to describe their publication, which I wouldn't object to. I have no opinion on the number (or category) of these publications other than that they should reflect reliable sources. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- No, my concern was that the phrasing was A) awkward and redundant B) not important enough (aka our sources do not emphasise it) to cite specific time periods on. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
This phrase has been in the article since the last draft merge. We should be reverting to restore the phrase as it was then before its recent removal. PeterTheFourth seems to be confused on the wording - "within a day" has absolutely nothing to do with "shortly following the initial accusations towards Quinn". Perhaps it is the phrasing. As for the sources -> I’m not above critiquing my readers. I think they deserve critique just as harshly as the press and the industry itself. But it is odd when you see nearly a dozen articles within a 24 hour period pop up declaring the annihilation of an identity. It reeks of the worst sort of identity politics. source 1 but the gaming journalists unwisely decided to respond to the growing, nebulous anger by declaring that “gamers” were dead. Such articles appeared concurrently in Gamasutra ... source 2 EncyclopediaBob - there's no need to look at the publication dates - source 1 is clear. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- I do think it is notable that so many blog articles that were basically on the same subject and were opinion pieces were printed over such a short period of time. But not all of those articles focusing on "gamers are over" were published within a day of each other. Many were published on the same day but all of them were published over a period of days. But I think if we are going to use "within a day", we can only cite the number of blog articles that were published on that day (or a 24 hour period). If we are going to include all blog articles on this subject, the wording has to be more vague like, "shortly following" or "over the next week" or something like that.
- But I do think the timing of this is a significant aspect to the controversy. According to pro-GamerGate sources I've read, these opinion pieces being published so closely together was more significant in mobilizing gamers than the Zoe blog post. I'm sure I could find a source for that claim but it would likely be a SPS like a blog post. Liz Read! Talk! 14:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- I dont see it as notable or unusual. Blogs are an infectious herd animal and its hard to find an example of any story that doesnt appear in dozens of blogs within very short time periods. Someone latched on to the survey putting adult women at near parity in numbers of gaming and the concept spread like ebola.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Liz - the number of articles published within that span of a day was "nearly a dozen". It is not nearly a dozen over a week. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Starship.paint If it is "nearly a dozen" then the article shouldn't say "a dozen". We should say the exact number which we can easily come up with. I mean GamerGate has all of this information cataloged in multiple places online. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- I dont see it as notable or unusual. Blogs are an infectious herd animal and its hard to find an example of any story that doesnt appear in dozens of blogs within very short time periods. Someone latched on to the survey putting adult women at near parity in numbers of gaming and the concept spread like ebola.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- The key about the timing of "Death of gamers" from the standpoint of the overall situation is that it inflamed the GG movement crowd to start doing these targetted advertising denial campaigns. They might have been fueled on a belief that there was a conspiracy behind these articles all being posted at the same time, but even ignoring that (which we can't readily source) we can say that the amount of the dislike the gamer identity got in a brief period of time was what triggered them to start to find a way to fight back, hence operation Disresepctful Nod, for example. Hence noting the period as tied to the movement's actions is important. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- I feel we have to be careful about relying on characterizations of why things happened; almost everyone involved has a different explanation for why everyone is saying or doing this or that, so we have to rely on our sources to inform the timeline or to dissect what the impetus for various aspects of the controversy were. Beyond that, it's also important to be extremely careful about how we describe or characterize the various op-eds. Lumping some of them together based on when they were published and saying that they were all making the same argument, say, is something we could attribute to the characterization or a particular source, but I don't feel we can do it in the article text unless we can find a decent number of reliable news sources (rather than opinion ones) using that description. And most news sources have described the articles as being primarily about opposing misogyny and harassment (as part of a larger reaction to and coverage of Gamergate's initial attacks) -- as far as I can tell, we only have Kain and Auerbach's opinion pieces dissenting, and their opinions are already given way more weight than they deserve throughout the article. --Aquillion (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think Liz sums it up nicely. Regarding Aquillon's comment on undue weight, WP:UNDUE applies to viewpoints, not objective (and entirely uncontroversial) facts like publication dates. Giving it one word ("concurrently") or at most 3 ("24 hour period") seems entirely "in proportion to their representation in reliable sources." —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's not a problem with the truth of the assertion- it's an issue with whether or not it adds to the article in a way that 'shortly following' does not. All proposed changes have been incredibly awkward and would be an issue readability-wise for our readers. Adding it adjacently to 'shortly following' is, as stated before, unnecessary. My suggestion to you: Come up with a way to add this information you feel is important in a sentence, something like 'Erik Kain, writing for Forbes, believes that the short, 24 hour time span within which these op-eds were published is one of the reasons why a very small minority of gamers believe the world is ending.' PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Once we've settled how to characterize them (they're not all op-eds) and the specific number (to Liz's point I suggest limiting the scope to those published within the 24 hour period) I'd replace the current text:
Gamergate supporters saw these op-eds as a conspiracy to stifle their criticism of the press with a smear campaign
with the following:Gamergate supporters saw the timing of these publications, all within a 24 hour period, as evidence of a coordinated effort by the press to deflect criticism.
—EncyclopediaBob (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)- I'd replace "a 24 hour period" with "a couple of days", as to reflect that what exactly the "death of gamers" article set was is unclear but establishes there was a very short time they all appeared. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Masem: We can source nearly a dozen articles within a 24 hour period pop up but what mentions "a couple of days"? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- I reverted this particular paragraph while (leaving GameStar in) to how it was at draft-merge. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Okay- why? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- The draft was the culmination of one month's worth of edits. Please see the archived decision to sync the draft, which already contained the words "within a day". The disputed change is removing the words, not adding them. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- No, I mean, why did you revert the entire paragraph from what it was now to what it was around three weeks ago? The paragraph was changed by multiple editors for multiple different reasons. You shouldn't be abolishing the entirety of these changes because you're not able to instate your own, especially not when your change shows no particular reason to be enacted policy wise. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- The paragraph didn't change (baring 2 Wiki-links) from the draft-merge to 10/11 January, depending on where you live. Any changes were much more recent than you give credit for. As I said, it is the removal of the words which is contentious, not the addition. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- I am able to see what was changed- you are mischaracterising the extent of your reversion, which is more than just 'two wiki-links'. Unless you can give policy based reasons as to why you reverted it wholesale (you are not to just say that it was this way before and you preferred it that way), I will reinstate the changes that were made- the paragraph seems much better as it was in terms of readability and accuracy to the sources quoted than as it is now that you have changed it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- For reference, I am talking about this edit, which you summarised as 'revert disputed content Talk:Gamergate controversy#Gamer identity: 'Within a day' to how it was originally at draft-merge'. Either you are not telling the truth here, or you are not telling the truth in your edit summary. Let me know. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- No, I mean, why did you revert the entire paragraph from what it was now to what it was around three weeks ago? The paragraph was changed by multiple editors for multiple different reasons. You shouldn't be abolishing the entirety of these changes because you're not able to instate your own, especially not when your change shows no particular reason to be enacted policy wise. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Okay- why? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'd replace "a 24 hour period" with "a couple of days", as to reflect that what exactly the "death of gamers" article set was is unclear but establishes there was a very short time they all appeared. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Once we've settled how to characterize them (they're not all op-eds) and the specific number (to Liz's point I suggest limiting the scope to those published within the 24 hour period) I'd replace the current text:
- It's not a problem with the truth of the assertion- it's an issue with whether or not it adds to the article in a way that 'shortly following' does not. All proposed changes have been incredibly awkward and would be an issue readability-wise for our readers. Adding it adjacently to 'shortly following' is, as stated before, unnecessary. My suggestion to you: Come up with a way to add this information you feel is important in a sentence, something like 'Erik Kain, writing for Forbes, believes that the short, 24 hour time span within which these op-eds were published is one of the reasons why a very small minority of gamers believe the world is ending.' PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- You're confusing everything. 1) Ignore all irrelevant GameStar content. 2) This is the version of draft-merge 22:16, 26 January 2015 (time where I live). I reverted to this version. 3) This is the consensus for using the draft-merge. 4) This is the version on 05:55, 11 February 2015 - the difference between 11 Feb and the draft merge is negligible. 5) This whole dispute started from 13:22, 11 February 2015, when "within a day" was removed. This dispute did not start when "within a day" was added. We revert back to how the article was before the dispute. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Wait, wait, slow down. The crux of the dispute is over the words "within a day"; reverting the entire section to where it was half a month ago over a one-word revision seems unnecessarily excessive. I also disagree with the basic idea of reverting to an edit from two weeks ago while discussions are in progress; if you actually feel that that entire version is better, you can make you case for it, but I feel it definitely does not enjoy that sort of consensus now, and I think that it's almost always better to propose a compromise (which many people above have taken stabs at) rather than to blanket-revert. Remember that consensus can change; and, beyond that, the kind of consensus you're talking about here (where you'd revert an edit for being against it) normally requires a degree of discussion and some sort of resolution, which I'm not sure these words ever got. Anyway, I tried editing it to a variation on one of the compromises suggested above. --Aquillion (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Aquillion, I think you need to change your edit to the article regarding this. The article can not say that "a dozen" opeds/articles were issued on a particular topic and later say that they were published within a day/24 hours because they were not. This is a fact that can be easily checked. I believe that 7 or 8 articles came out around the same day and the others a few days later (and there might have been more than a dozen). Either "a dozen" has to be changed or "within 24 hours" needs to be changed. From my POV, the important element is that these articles appeared shortly after each other and whether it was 7 or 12 is not that relevant. Should we list them here with their publication date and headline? Because they might have not all been on the exact same theme. Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Starship Paint made that change, but he also made one I object to; specifically, he changed it to say (in the article text) that there were nearly a dozen "gamers are over" articles (making the implicit assertion, as a point of fact, that all of those articles were about that specific subject, rather than being eg about promoting diversity and opposing harassment, which is how most of the other sources in the paragraph characterize the articles in question.) That's WP:OR; we can list specific articles and say "this article said XYZ", but if we want to make sweeping claims that eg. nearly a dozen articles were saying the same thing (rather than just saying 'this specific article was saying this thing'), we have to assign that view to someone making that interpretation of the articles, and describe it as their view rather than as objective fact. We can say "so-and-so said gamers are dead", but we can't say "there were nearly a dozen gamers are dead" articles, because describing them all as 'gamers are dead' articles is stating Kain and Auerbach's opinions on them (and their interpretation of their topics) as if it were fact, when the other sources in the paragraph make it clear that their reading is controversial. In other words, it's not uncontroversial fact that these articles were all on the same topic, at least not in the way Kain and Auerbach's opinion-pieces make them out to be. And I'll reiterate, again, that Kain and Auerbach's pieces are opinion pieces -- they can be used as sources for Kain and Auerbach's opinions, but are generally not good sources for statements of fact, so anything sourced to them should generally be worded along the lines of eg. "Auerbach said..." or otherwise prefaced with something to make it clear that it is only their opinion. If we want to state something as fact, we should try to find reliable news sources covering it instead. --Aquillion (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- In addition, only Kain says "nearly a dozen". Auerbach says "half a dozen". Woodroar (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I was going over them and noticed that just as you did; I actually made an edit to that effect just before I saw your comment. In any case, we can't say either "nearly a dozen" or "half a dozen" without making it clear which one we're quoting, since it's obvious that they don't quite agree on which articles fit their categorization. --Aquillion (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- In addition, only Kain says "nearly a dozen". Auerbach says "half a dozen". Woodroar (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Starship Paint made that change, but he also made one I object to; specifically, he changed it to say (in the article text) that there were nearly a dozen "gamers are over" articles (making the implicit assertion, as a point of fact, that all of those articles were about that specific subject, rather than being eg about promoting diversity and opposing harassment, which is how most of the other sources in the paragraph characterize the articles in question.) That's WP:OR; we can list specific articles and say "this article said XYZ", but if we want to make sweeping claims that eg. nearly a dozen articles were saying the same thing (rather than just saying 'this specific article was saying this thing'), we have to assign that view to someone making that interpretation of the articles, and describe it as their view rather than as objective fact. We can say "so-and-so said gamers are dead", but we can't say "there were nearly a dozen gamers are dead" articles, because describing them all as 'gamers are dead' articles is stating Kain and Auerbach's opinions on them (and their interpretation of their topics) as if it were fact, when the other sources in the paragraph make it clear that their reading is controversial. In other words, it's not uncontroversial fact that these articles were all on the same topic, at least not in the way Kain and Auerbach's opinion-pieces make them out to be. And I'll reiterate, again, that Kain and Auerbach's pieces are opinion pieces -- they can be used as sources for Kain and Auerbach's opinions, but are generally not good sources for statements of fact, so anything sourced to them should generally be worded along the lines of eg. "Auerbach said..." or otherwise prefaced with something to make it clear that it is only their opinion. If we want to state something as fact, we should try to find reliable news sources covering it instead. --Aquillion (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Aquillion, I think you need to change your edit to the article regarding this. The article can not say that "a dozen" opeds/articles were issued on a particular topic and later say that they were published within a day/24 hours because they were not. This is a fact that can be easily checked. I believe that 7 or 8 articles came out around the same day and the others a few days later (and there might have been more than a dozen). Either "a dozen" has to be changed or "within 24 hours" needs to be changed. From my POV, the important element is that these articles appeared shortly after each other and whether it was 7 or 12 is not that relevant. Should we list them here with their publication date and headline? Because they might have not all been on the exact same theme. Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Givens and Dotson
So one of the Givens references has been entirely replaces by a Dotson ref. This is strange by itself. But, also, the Dotson inclusion has problems with confusing antecedents, and looks like UNDUE and endrun around SOAPBOX. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- NOTE: there needs to be a RS showing "their negativity" before putting a reaction opinion to that. Otherwise it a strawman argument. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- ForbiddenRocky, I get your points but I recommend reading the discussion on these articles farther up on the Talk Page where this is discussed. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, didn't realize one of the above topics had mutated to cover these two sources. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- ForbiddenRocky, I get your points but I recommend reading the discussion on these articles farther up on the Talk Page where this is discussed. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)