Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Sources we shouldn't be using

As I noted breaking when breaking down the individual sources, there are some sources which we shouldn't use.

The New Yorker

Zoe Quinn's Depression Quest makes some claims which are outright false. The most notable of which is:

• "In the past few weeks, a debate about journalistic ethics in video-game coverage has spilled onto social media. Tens of thousands of tweets were written, most of them accompanied by the hashtag #gamergate. Many Twitter users involved in the discussion called for more clarity and disclosure by writers about the relationships they have with independent creators. They want critics to abide by John Updike’s sound rule to never “accept for review a book you are … committed by friendship to like.” In Quinn’s case, the fact that she was the subject of the attacks rather than the friend who wrote about her game reveals the true nature of much of the criticism: a pretense to make further harassment of women in the industry permissible."

Bolding is mine.

However, in reality, this was not the case; not only was Grayson the target of attacks, but it rose to the point where his employer, Kotaku, was forced to issue an official response on the subject matter. This is a major factual error, and is directly tied to their conclusion that the

Likewise, the article claims that the controversy dissipated after Quinn claimed that 4Chan was behind it all; given that 4Chan has actually banned discussion of the subject matter at various times, and that the controversy continued on well past this point, it is very questionable.

Two factual errors is quite a few for a piece this short, with one of them being a major factual error which lead directly to their conclusion and could have been easily checked by them. It seems to be very heavily dependent on Zoe Quinn as a source. I don't think that this source should be treated as a reliable source for the purposes of this article, though we could possibly scavenge from it for Quinn quotes if necessary. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In context, the statement is clear. Grayson was not the target of a vicious, sustained and news-making harassment campaign, as Quinn was. This is not a "factual error," merely wording you disagree with.

The statement that "the controversy dissipated" is largely true as regards Zoe Quinn - no source has taken seriously the allegations since they were debunked.

In short, your claim of "factual errors" is a nothingburger. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The attacks on Grayson's credibility as a journalist were noted by a number of reliable sources, and his employer felt that they were sufficiently numerous and plentiful as to necessitate a direct statement and investigation into the matter. The idea that his credibility was not attacked is simply false; it was. Moreover, the paragraph in question is talking about jouranlistic ethics and attacks on the credibility and ethics as regards journalism. I'm sorry, but what The New Yorker said simply isn't true. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion. The source is reliable and it's not going anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Except it isn't. How is this not a direct factual error? You're claiming the source is saying something completely different from what it is saying. The context is clear; it is claiming that she was attacked and Grayson was not. Grayson was, in fact, attacked. Even Grayson's employer stated he was attacked. You have the right to your own opinions, but you don't have the right to your own facts, as they say, and when a source does not fact check, it isn't reliable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that, as described by umpteen reliable sources, Quinn was the subject of the vicious attacks, rape and death threats, doxxing, etc. By comparison, Grayson got basically nothing. Nobody titled IRC channels and hashtags after third-grade-level jokes about Grayson's sex life. If you can't see that context staring you in the face, you're just willfully ignoring it out of your own desperation to find some way, any way to remove sources saying things that you don't like about your ideology. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we'll take the word of a reputable near-century old publication of the word of...you. Tarc (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Age has nothing to do with reliability. You seem to be confused. I recommend you read WP:RS. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You're the last person on earth who will ever lecture me about proper Wikipedia use, I'm afraid. The New Yorker is a reliable source for all things at all times in this project. Period. Full Stop. If you attempt to remove material that is sourced to the New Yorker from an article under the claim of "unreliable source", you will be reverted and reported to the appropriate vandalism board. If you really wish to question the New Yorker as a reliable source, the WP:RSN is where you can go roll those dice. I hope this clears some things up for you. Tarc (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, for someone with 21,166 edits you seem to be confusing the non-mutually equivalent concepts of "content dispute" with "vandalism". --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If someone removes material sourced to the New Yorker, they're either a vandal or incompetent. I'm comfortable with pursuing the matter in either direction if the need arises. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Grayson was in no way "attacked" as Quinn and those who supported her were. The best that we can describe is that Kotaku got a lot of comments but that is a far far cry from harassment. the New Yorker is 100% consistent with all other sources, and nowhere close to be invalidated due to your claim. --MASEM (t) 04:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph makes it very clear that it is talking about attacks on their ethics and integrity. Kotaku themselves said:

• The allegations have been extreme. Nathan has been accused of in some way trading positive coverage of a developer for the opportunity to sleep with her, of failing to disclose that he was in a romantic relationship with a developer he had written about, and that he'd given said developer's game a favorable review.

Numerous early news reports on the matter, including Bright Side of News, Gamer Headlines, GamesNosh, InternetAristocrat, ect. noted the accusations towards Grayson. A number of other articles mentioned the controversy as being a very early thing which subsided before the whole thing really took off. After Kotaku's announcement that they could find no evidence for the claims of impropriety or that the relationship started before the article in question was written, people stopped haranguing on Grayson. Things got significantly worse for Quinn after that point, but the idea that Grayson was not "attacked" was false; his credibility and integrity as a journalist was the subject of considerable controversy in the early days of what later came to be known as GamerGate. As the paragraph in the New Yorker is talking about attacks on the integrity of journalists, in context it is clear that it is saying that it was Quinn who was attacked, not Grayson, when in fact Grayson was subjected to attacks as well. It is true that they subsided while new things rose up to take its place as far as Quinn went (the thing with The Fine Young Capitalists, the DMCA on YouTube which was attributed to her) as well as just general mayhem which came about when people started insulting each other on Twitter and elsewhere, as well as the massive backlash against the attempted censorship campaign, but that doesn't mean that Grayson wasn't "attacked". When someone says that someone slept with someone and gave them positive press, that is definitely an "attack" on their character, integrity, and credibility, and a lot of people were claiming exactly that in the early days of the controversy. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Numerous accusations is not an attack, in the eyes of the press that saw the harassment and death threats against Quinn and anyone supported her. Grayson may have had some nasty emails and messages his way, but compared to what Quinn got, he was unscathed. Hence why none of the reliable sources (your list is not that) does not consider Grayson attacked, nowhere close to the attacks Quinn got. So there is nothing wrong with the NYorker's statement here that we can even challenge. (And really, its very obvious we can compare what the history of the social media reveals, it's pretty obvious Grayson was not the primary target that the extreme GG side went towards) --MASEM (t) 05:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

While I think we should be careful not to insert any factual inaccuracies into the article, disallowing sources on the basis of them containing factual inaccuracies would leave us with very little material. Most news coverage on this matter, as with many other matters, is littered with factual inaccuracies.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been following this wiki page for quite a while now, I believe The New Yorker is biased piece. Why you ask? Because when the article was originally submitted it had quotes copy/pasted from Leigh's Time Article, because they contained the same spelling errors as Alexanders article, which were later corrected, not only that but they are friends on Twitter. Make of that what you will. Buut since it's original research it's probably not allowable :P Kau-12 (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"I believe The New Yorker is biased piece..." pretty much invalidates anything you have to say on this matter, especially coming from an account dormant for ~8 years. Tarc (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

So if I said "I believe the New Yorker piece should be the basis of all modern journalism" You'd be heaping praise on me right?  :) Kau-12 (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not The New Yorker's article is biased in one way or the other is more or less only tangentially relevant to whether or not its article should be allowed in our Wikipedia article. After all, we're talking about a magazine that's been considered to be a highly respectable source for decades. It is a reliable source and it definitely fits under WP:RS. If we need to challenge any purported bias in the article, we should contrast it with reliable articles which address those concerns. Rselby1 (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Leigh Alexander is a primary source

Leigh Alexander has written a number of pieces on this, most notably in Time magazine and for Gamasutra. However, Leigh Alexander also works for Kotaku, which is a clear conflict of interest. Additionally, she is directly involved in the controversy herself, both in regards to yelling at people on Twitter, which has been documented by TechCrunch and others, and especially because Intel specifically cited Leigh Alexander's article as being the reason why they were withdrawing their ads from Gamasutra. As a direct party to the conflict, we should treat pieces written by Leigh Alexander as we would any other primary source. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

No, she doesn't, and no, being the subject of a GamerGate campaign does not render one's writing unusable. As has been repeatedly explained, what you propose would effectively give GamerGate a veto over any source it doesn't like - just start targeting them and OMG BIASED COI UNFAIR CAN'T USE THEM. No, that's not how it works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly warned not to misrepresent what others are saying. Please stop doing so. That is not what I said at all. Leigh Alexander works as a freelance writer for Kotaku; this means that she is employed by a press outlet which is at the center of the controversy, a press outlet which had to issue a press release denying that its reporter had done anything wrong. This is an obvious conflict of interest in and of itself. Moreover, she is now a directly involved party, even beyond being a writer for Kotaku. Both of these are very real issues as far as conflict of interest issues go, as well as being a secondary source versus a primary source. If someone denounces a journalist, and the journalist writes a response, that response would not be considered a secondary source but a primary source, regardless of the venue of publication.

This is different from if a reporter is yelled at for being so biased and unfair about something they aren't directly involved in. When you have sources like TechCrunch noting that she is threatening people's careers on Twitter over this (and with screenshots to prove it), this is a bit problematic, don't you think? That's not how a journalist or other secondary source is supposed to behave.

WP:CONFLICT talks about some conflict of interest issues as regards Wikipedia. As Michael Davis notes, and is quoted by that article:

• A conflict of interest is a situation in which some person P (whether an individual or corporate body) stands in a certain relation to one or more decisions. On the standard view, P has a conflict of interest if, and only if, (1) P is in a relationship with another requiring P to exercise judgment in the other's behalf and (2) P has a (special) interest tending to interfere with the proper exercise of judgment in that relationship.

When you are dealing with your employer, saying something negative about them can get you fired. Thus, when you are talking about your employer, and addressing their role in a controversy, that is generally going to be a conflict of interest, as you can't very well say "Yeah, they're guilty" or whatever without having a very real risk of losing your job. The issue with Kotaku alone is sufficient to disqualify her as a RS for this issue. Moreover, she, personally, works in PR for indie game developers in addition to working as a games journalist, which is precisely the sort of mixing of roles that this conflict is about, and which she defends in her article, noting that it is totally normal to have friendships with games developers, even though even The New Yorker notes that as being questionable. There are numerous sources which directly contradict her on this point, and reporting on your friends is always going to present a conflict of interest, something she totally dismisses, even going so far as to claim that friendship is essential to reporting in her article in Time.

If you logged onto Wikipedia to edit an article about your employer, you'd very likely be subjected to considerable scrutiny, and rightly so. If you inserted positive information about it, it is very likely administrative action would be taken against you. Why, then, are you claiming that Leigh Alexander is somehow different? Are you disputing that she does not act as a freelance writer for Kotaku? Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And you have been repeatedly warned that rehashing the same tired, repeatedly-rejected argument over and over and over and over again is unproductive and evidence of disruptive editing behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The argument about Leigh Alexander lacking independence has hardly been rejected, except by you and other editors in the anti-GamerGate camp. I do not think we need to avoid using her as a source altogether or that the current usage is inappropriate, but using her as a source on her own for any contentious claims about GamerGate would be inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, Conflict of Internet only changes a source from independent to dependent, and not into some "unusable" category. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking over the article, the Leigh Alexander Time article is used seven times. Three of those are unquestionably ok, as their use is to source claims by Alexander. The remaining four seem uncontroversial, and in those cases the reference is only used to provide an additional source for the claims, rather than on its own. We could potentially argue that in those cases the source isn't necessary, although generally a reference from Time is going to be worth including. Alternatively, it also seems that if the uses are supported by additional sources, then we've got greater reason for believing that the Time article is reliable on those points. Is there a particular use which is problematic? - Bilby (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

One issue is that we're not supposed to be doing it per WP:RS for factual statements, for the same reason we don't cite primary sources on contentious issues about BLPs, even if secondary sources agree with them - we aren't linking to Eron Gjoni's post, even though it is cited by a lot of sources and could be used to cite statements about some of the origins of the thing, because it is against the rules.

The other issue is that the use in the introduction does create a "narrative" which isn't a neutral representation of the facts; reliable sources disagree about the source of the controversy, and Leigh Alexander's presentation is one of the "backlash against cultural commentary/changing demographics" things. The problem is that this is disputed by other sources, which claim that this is about corruption in journalism, and there are about even numbers of sources which claim each. Presenting that as what is going on is questionable, given that is but one "angle" on the story, and it is presented as if it is what happened, rather than being what one group claims. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

SIGH. Leigh Alexander may be an aspect of the controversy now, but that does not retroactively color her previous writings on the subject, because that would set up a slippery slope to encompass any and all writers who were critical of Gamergate that had some level of vitriol and attacks sent their way as a result of the movement's seedier and more vocal parts. And you have provided nothing in the line of reliable sources to refute Alexander's claims. Just more pro-Gamergate rhetoric.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems that if the emphasis of the third paragraph is an issue, the problem lies with the paragraph as a whole - the only time Alexander's piece is used as a source is for the line "The rising popularity of the medium, and greater emphasis on games as a potential art form, has led to a commensurate focus on social criticism within gaming media and indie works" which seems in keeping with the general GamerGate debate. Certainly arguments about the emphasis by journalists on social justice issues are coming heavily from pro-GG commentators. - Bilby (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The thing to keep in mind is that if we really want to stick to hard to the prevailing RS (not even Alexender's) we would have to present GG as much of the other press speak of it as, which is (summarizing their words from more recent, not mine) a bunch of male gamers having a temper-tantrum that the game market is changing on them and doing any deed to get others to notice that. Instead, by treating that view as extreme, we instead at least try to give some creditability to GG and express it this way, and that third paragraph (per Bilby) is probably the fairest and politest and best-light way to call what the GG side that we can through sources. We cannot take the next extreme: that this had been the intent of GG the whole time, as there simply is zero sources to show that there was a movement until after the harassment of Quinn. Which is where Alexander's Time piece (prior to the Intel stuff) actually is probably overly fair towards describing the proGG stuff considering what side she has clearly taken in this, and would definitely not be a reason to remove her for a balanced statement. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Masem:: Please stop repeating this over and over again. It simply is not true. I linked to my (still incomplete) source count here; the bulk of the sources do not agree with that assessment. That is the claim of one side, and it is characterized as such in the majority of the articles. What the GamerGaters are about varies, but the idea that it is all "men hate women in video games" is not supported by the majority of reliable sources. Telegraph, Washington Post, Forbes, Digitimes, Slate, TechCrunch, ect. have all characterized that as what people who are targeted by it claim, and note it as being something else from the GamerGater point of view, and many express skepticism towards the idea that it is all misogyny. So, no, that is not what the RSs characterize it as. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I never said that the sources are saying "men hate women in video games". They are saying those behind the harassment attacks on Quinn et al are likely driven by misogynist aspects. A few have extended that to all supporters of gamergate, but others have been clear they are aware that those are really a vocal minority. That's included in the article already (the letter of support bit). But that said, nearly all the anti-GG side have said that the vocal minority are these people having this temper-tantrum, and I'm pretty sure the proGG would not like to have that as the clear point on this article. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

can you clarify your last sentance for me? Retartist (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that we could use RS to paint the portion of the proGG side in a very negative light using a portion of the body of RSes we have here, but we won't as that's POV as well as perverting the bulk of the content in these. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

"The controversy came to wider attention due to a sustained campaign of harassment that indie game developer Zoe Quinn was subjected to after an ex-boyfriend posted numerous allegations on his blog in August 2014, including that she had a "romantic relationship"[7] with a Kotaku journalist, which prompted concerns that the relationship led to positive media coverage for her game. Although these concerns proved unfounded,[8][a]"

Why were the concerns proven unfounded? Firstly the allegations were that Quinn recieved favourable coverage compared to her peers, not a review. <redact BLP violations> Lastly, the sources are quite literally just Grayson saying "I didn't do it". How is that allowed as evidence that the accusations were proven false?

Someone please explain to me how this is considered factual neutral information? Kau-12 (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Do not make unsourced accusations of wrongdoing or speculative claims about people's personal lives. Provide reliable sources if you intend to make negative claims about a person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We have no 100% way to prove what Grayson, Quinn, and Kotaku said were false, but the fact that other reliable sources read what they had written and stated affirmatively the accusations were false means that is how we are reporting it in the encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a provable fact that Grayson did not write any articles about Quinn after beginning the relationship, as per the timeline given in Gjoni's own blogposts. There were specific allegations laid that he had reviewed her game, which, provably, he did not, because no such review exists. Reliable sources have repeatedly noted those facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

(Factually, we actually have no affirmation from a non-independent source when the relation began, but as I noted, other sources have trusted what Kotaku has said for this). --MASEM (t) 00:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, but Gjoni established in his own posts when he believed the relationship began, and given that it's his side of the story which spurred the allegations, they're about the "best case scenario" for Gamergate. And by Gjoni's timeline, Grayson wrote nothing about Quinn after beginning the relationship. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

So because Grayson posted the article featuring Quinn's game, two before after they were officially a couple, there is no ethical breach, and no reason for GamerGate at all? And because Kotaku is being parroted as being the official account by other press sources, it's now considered fact by wikipedia. And because no sources able to counter this argument are considered "reliable" I'm guessing this is how the entire wiki page will be panning out? And any original research submitted here is also considered "inadmissible". So the best thing anyone can do for improving this article is to spend a few years getting their Journalism degree, work their way up to Time Magazine, and publish a properly researched article. So I should expect this article to be Neutral Point of View by... 2020? Maybe? Kau-12 (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no "official" date they were a couple, the only date that RSs give is about April 2014, I think, and with that , anyone can prove there were no sources from Grayson near that. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the only thing Nathan Grayson ever wrote about Depression Quest - literally a three-word mention as a "standout" and a screenshot in a short blogposted list of Greenlighted Steam games. You strain credulity by claiming that is a "feature." And yes, this was four months before any relationship happened, by Gjoni's own timeline.

If there are reliable sources noting evidence that any of this is untrue, feel free to present those sources here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

50 Games Greenlighted, Depression Quest gets the title screenshot and the title is a play on words of Quinn's game. If that isn't a feature of an article, I don't know what is. But we can cover other things as well, Patrick Klepek, Quinn's panel Collaborator, writing a glowing review of Depression Quest. Robin Arnott, who awarded Quinn's game the selection award, which kicked off more press coverage. All have relationships with Quinn of some sort. But because it's not published in the Boston Globe, or the New York Times, it's considered original research or from a unreliable source, and therefore, the entire press narrative that says that GamerGate is little more than a woman hating conspiracy remains unchanged, they have effectively "poisoned the well" so to speak. I feel sorry for anyone that reads this wikipedia page and takes it's research at face value. Kau-12 (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, that story was 3 months before we can accurately say they had a relationship. Mind you, the industry has made it clear that devs and journalists are friends, and there is a playing for positive coverage from indie devs all the time (in addition to the pomp triple AAA studios do). But the specific accusation that is central is that Quinn was romantically involved with Grayson to get positive coverage of her game, which is has been refuted as best as we expect. Quinn being friends with any of those others is not a factor in the charges that the GG side has made to this. --MASEM (t) 00:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that a person who once spoke on the same conference panel with another person now has a conflict of interest strikes me as the reachiest reach that ever reached. You realize that conferences are designed for people to share ideas, discuss their industries and create connections, right? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me, but at this point this discussion is veering off course as a something that seems to be productive towards improving the Gamergate article itself and is instead debating the issues itself. I ask for everyone to keep WP:TPG in light. Rselby1 (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, he's right so I guess that no one will be annoyed if the game they were working on for 3 years might not get any press coverage because devs who are lovers/buddies of the journos are getting preferential coverage. No one should be pissed off, it happens all the time! So what, no big deal. There are children starving in Africa, these are just kids games. Cool off. Go outside. Kau-12 (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Pardon? As I've said before, this discussion is veering off topic from what guidelines state that talk pages are supposed to be about: discussing the article's merits and how to improve the article. Let's try to keep this discussion towards improving the article itself. Keep in mind WP:TPG, and assume good faith here WP:AGF. Remember, we're all in this together. Rselby1 (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 October 2014

• In the Background section, please resolve the dab link [[tropes]] to [[fantasy tropes and conventions|tropes]].

Thank you. --Mirokado (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Done non-controversial fix. --MASEM (t) 00:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional request: the phrase "in the gaming community" appears 3 times in this article and 2 more times in our references. I request that the first instance of gaming community be hyperlinked so that people can click this phrase and understand what it means. If we have not defined what a phrase means in some form then we should not be using it in such a specific (definite article 'the' singular and authoritative) way. Perhaps this could also lead to expanding the stub note that currently inhabits the phrase. Ranze (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that gaming community is a disambig page, I'm hesistent to this if we have "gamer" already linked (which is the most relevant link on the disambi page). --MASEM (t) 06:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Attitudes

I haven't edited this article, but I have been following it and this talk page quite closely, and despite the warning at the top, it doesn't seem to affect the vitriolic nature of some editor's comments and responses. As an observer and someone who may at some point have something valuable to contribute, whether to the discussion, this article, or any other part, could a more professional tone be adopted? While some have done this all along and maintained a cool head, others present would never survive a professional atmosphere. 2601:B:3100:5E9:6439:B30B:3F8C:B85E (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a largely unspoken de facto rule, but Wikipedia isn't about what rules you follow, but how many friends you can make that can stick up for you when you break those rules. I really doubt that any of the people here throwing attacks around will ever get reprimanded for their behaviour. It also proves, once again, that being an old boy is much better than being a new editor. Cue a dozen editors denying all of this in 3, 2, 1... --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a fair assessment, however unfortunate. It's largely true everywhere, though, not just on Wikipedia. I do think that respect goes both ways, and that new editors who come out swinging or who can't be troubled to read shouldn't be surprised at the reaction they get. But I was online (shortly) before Eternal September when there was an expectation that you would read the FAQs and lurk for a while to get a feeling for the community before wading in to say they're doing everything wrong. I guess that's just me. Woodroar (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Describing Quinn-Grayson relationship in the lede

Several editors persistently remove mention of Quinn "cheating" on Gjoni with Grayson by saying it was a blog post making "allegations about her personal life" or calling it a "romantic relationship", which not only overlook the sexual element, but also avoid any mention of cheating. The efforts to avoid this in the lede may be partly motivated by privacy concerns that are at this point irrelevant, but seems to me that this also serves to downplay the significance of the allegations as well as playing into certain negative characterizations of Gjoni's actions. Being completely frank about the allegations in the lede seems appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't really care about the nature of the relationship; it's irrelevant to the controversy except to further demonstrate that GamerGate cares more about someone's sexual relationships than it does about anything having to do with "journalism ethics." The interpersonal drama between Gjoni and Quinn is of no public interest; what is of potential public interest is if any of her relationships created a conflict of interest in journalistic coverage. That it did not has been amply demonstrated. If you want to add information that further demonstrates GamerGate's unhealthy obsession with Zoe Quinn's personal life, I think that speaks volumes for what the movement is really interested in. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's all about tone. If we leave it like this it sounds like Quinn got into a relationship with the game journalist after she broke up with the ex-boyfriend. The allegations that the ex-boyfriend made was that she was having sexual realtionships whilst she was still dating him. --86.169.65.156 (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

We (on Wikipedia) do not care about the other assertions of infidelity about Quinn as any other such claim is a violation of BLP; the only claim that matters is if the romantic relationship between Quinn and Grayson spurred positive coverage her. More than just a friendship (since it is established they knew each other before as friends but not romantic friends). Whether that was her being dishonest with her boyfriend at the time does not matter one iota for us or this article as that's BLP violation to claim that otherwise. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Just took a quick skim through the WP:BLP. I can see where I was wrong (Self-published source and libel). But, there is one more thing, the current wording says that the ex-boyfriends "posted numerous allegations on his blog in August 2014", but from what I can tell it has all the hallmarks of a single-purpose blog (no entries before it's creation). Could we clarify that the ex-boyfriend "created a blog to post numerous allegations in August 2014", or would that require a source? --86.169.65.156 (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, we don't have a way to tell when the actual blog was created, only when the first entry was posted. Woodroar (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

My question concerns whether we should pussyfoot around about Gjoni's allegations in the lede or simply say Quinn cheated on him with Grayson. Right now we seem to have one person laying in bed and the other sitting in bed with feet on the floor. This ain't An Affair to Remember but Fatal Attraction (I leave it to the reader to decide who gets to be Glenn Close since a direct comparison does not sync well).--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We actually have no evidence that meets the BLP quality standards to support that claim - that is, we have no idea from reliable sources (the ex's blog is not one for this) if she had broke up with him before seeing Grayson. I'm well aware of what the claim is, but it definitely is BLP to go into that. All that we need to go into is that the ex claimed she was seeing Grayson , which expanded by others to make the claim about using that relationship to get reviews. --MASEM (t) 04:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We never explicitly say she did cheat on him, to be precise. It is noted as an allegation and that is how it was being noted in the lede, but apparently any implication of sexual activity on Quinn's part is too much for some editors.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

If GG never happened, all of the allegations made by the ex would fail to be on WP because they are clear BLP violations. The only allegation that matters for the purposes of GG, and thus nullifying the BLP aspect, is that she slept with Grayson explicitly for getting positive press cover, not that this was cheating on her ex. Whether she cheated on her ex has zero relevance for GG and remains a BLP problem to include directly. That said a smart reader can read between the lines and come to their own conclusion what actually happened, but we cannot outright say that. --MASEM (t) 04:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources mention the allegation was about her cheating on him with Grayson, among others: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Add that to the four sources mentioning "Five guy burgers and fries" and that is quite a few reliable sources talking about the allegations of cheating. Beating around the bush on the nature of the relationship only serves to mislead readers when plenty of reliable sources aren't so coy.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn's motivations, whether she did something FOR something else, is irrelevant. A journalist failed to disclose a close relationship with someone he was writing about and giving positive coverage to. This is all that matters here. Snakebyte42 (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Then why was Quinn sent so much vitriol?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask a telepath.Snakebyte42 (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that the journalist didn't write about or give positive coverage to her during the relationship, as described by multiple sources. You sure aren't helping GamerGate make its case that "it's not about Zoe Quinn," are you? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

What in the hell is your problem? I was responding to a specific word in the post above mine. I haven't spouted off any ideology or claimed to support any group. I don't think speculating on anyone's motivation is the sort of material that needs to be in an encyclopedia. Additionally, you are defining 'the relationship' as a romantic one. I am not. Stating that two people were not having sexual intercourse at a specific time does not mean that they were not close enough for there to be an ethical concern. Unless your sources conclusively prove when Nathan Greyson and Zoe Quinn MET, they do not debunk anything. They only de-sensationalize it. Snakebyte42 (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we don't work on the concept that one must prove a negative. The burden of evidence in any accusation is on those who make the accusation. More to the point, multiple reliable sources describe the allegation as false, unfounded and unsupported. Our content is based on what reliable sources say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You're rather loony, aren't you? I was responding to The Devil's Advocate's comment above: "The only allegation that matters for the purposes of GG, and thus nullifying the BLP aspect, is that she slept with Grayson explicitly for getting positive press cover, not that this was cheating on her ex.". I'm saying that doesn't matter either. Nor does whether she slept with him at all, to be quite honest. That Nathan Grayson reported on a topic he had a conflict of interest in is the only allegation that matters for the purposes of this article. If you believe you have adequately proven that to be false, then so be it, include the allegation and the contradicting proof. The other allegations don't merit inclusion. Additionally, I'm simply pointing out, not for anything related to inclusion in the article but as my own thoughts in response to your own words, that 'conflict of interest' is not synonymous with 'sex' and refuting the latter does not refute the former. Snakebyte42 (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You're demonstrating that you haven't read the article. The reliable sources debunking the allegation of a conflict of interest are amply and repeatedly linked. Now go read the article before commenting further. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct! I read the talk page. I commented on the talk page. To someone else. About an allegation being irrelevant. You saw the need to attack me. Way to go. Snakebyte42 (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we tend to, y'know, actually read the article before commenting about it on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

By the looks of it, what you tend to do on Wikipedia is drive off fellow contributors because you woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. Now go read WP:Civil. Snakebyte42 (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It's to discourage editors whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to attempt to push a point of view that goes against common sense and what the reliable sources on the subject discuss. The pro-Gamergate side can complain about Grayson and Quinn being friends at the time of his GAME_JAM article until the cows come home, but that does not mean there was any conflict of interest as journalist after journalist (outside of gaming) who have been commenting on Gamergate have noted that it is extremely common for journalists to establish a raport with the people they regularly cover. Totillo stated that there was no further articles written by Grayson about Quinn when they began their romantic relationship so why is this constantly refuted and the goal posts constantly moved whenever this discussion happens?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what's supposed to be "uncivil" about pointing out that you're making a long-debunked allegation and that the reliably-sourced answer to your question is in this talk page's article, which you just admitted you haven't even bothered to read. But have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not moving any goalposts. I'm saying that Zoe Quinn's motivations aren't the relevant allegation here. I am not trying to make any statement regarding what happened, did not happen, was proven, nor have I at any point. I addressed a statement that said it mattered why Zoe Quinn sought a sexual relationship with Nathan Grayson by saying that it does not, it only matters whether preferential coverage took place while it, or a close non-sexual relationship, existed. This is the relevant allegation. It's what should be in the article. Why someone slept with someone else is not Wikipedia material. If I missed including an instance of the word 'allegation' in previous comments, you have my apologies. You would do well to refrain from attacking other editors.Snakebyte42 (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is not discussing "why someone slept with someone else". It is discussing the fact that the Gamergate movement began with attacks on a woman game dev for having a romantic relationship with someone who works for a website no one takes seriously anyway and the vague interview she had with him for the site somehow constitutes "preferential coverage" despite no financial gain to be made, as far as I am aware. The claims you believe are being addressed are no where in the article. It's just constant discussion here because the pro-Gamergate movement will not drop the false allegations against her and constantly move the goal posts on when the allegations refer to. If it's not a sexual relationship then it's a platonic relationship. What sort of nepotism arises from someone who gave a video game away for free by someone who writes for a website that compared the Hong Kong democracy protests with Resident Evil?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you even hear yourself? I was commenting. On the talk page. I spoke out against including something. I'm not a fucking movement. I'm not a fucking sockpuppet. I disagreed with an opinion espoused by The Devil's Advocate and was instantly characterized as a drop-in zealot and set upon by you and NorthBySouthBaranof. What are you even doing? Learn to productively edit and engage in discourse to improve an article. Contrary to The Devil's Advocate, I don't believe Zoe Quinn's motivations for engaging in a sexual relationship with Nathan Greyson should be added to this article. This shouldn't merit you trying to bait me with anti-Gamergate drivel. Please peddle your biased horseshit elsewhere. I've been, and will continue to be, nothing but neutral. Whether a desire for positive press or a desire for penis drove Zoe Quinn onto Nathan Grayson's throbbing shaft is NOT WIKIPEDIA'S CONCERN. How much clearer do I have to make this--my only--statement? Snakebyte42 (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't even think there is any mention of "motivations for engaging in a sexual relationship" in the article or in TDA's statement. The only discussion is whether or not it should be referred to as an affair or a sexual relationship, rather than a "romantic relationship". The argument is whether or not we include Gjoni's allegation that the relationship with Grayson began before he and Quinn split. No one has mentioned anything about sexual motivations but you, and certainly not in that language that's probably going to get revdelled.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You're entirely correct, there was an edit conflict as I was posting my original comment and I did not look up carefully enough when referencing it just now. I am referring to Masem's comment immediately above The Devil's Advocate's comment. I haven't even read TDA's. This comment is the one I intended to reference: "If GG never happened, all of the allegations made by the ex would fail to be on WP because they are clear BLP violations. The only allegation that matters for the purposes of GG, and thus nullifying the BLP aspect, is that she slept with Grayson explicitly for getting positive press cover, not that this was cheating on her ex. Whether she cheated on her ex has zero relevance for GG and remains a BLP problem to include directly. That said a smart reader can read between the lines and come to their own conclusion what actually happened, but we cannot outright say that. " I am saying NO, NOT EVEN THAT ALLEGATION MATTERS. This is not a pro-Gamergate comment. I am taking a step backwards from Masem's position, not pushing anything. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That allegation is the one that started the mess of events here, of course it matters. That said, we have no right to try to guess why Quinn decided to get involved with Grayson, nor does that matter. We have to mention the accusation and it's subsequent refuting by Kotaku and others as 1) it is what set in motion the claims of journalistic ethics and 2) those already with a dislike of Quinn to have more material to use against her. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable and addresses my objection. Your professionalism is appreciated. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We are not going to make this article a venue for schoolyard gossip about someone's personal life. The allegation started the events, but let's be honest about that--the allegation of cheating came from a blog post by an ex-boyfriend and contained inaccurate (and the inaccuracy is important here) accusations about Quinn's motivation and the outcome of her relationship. And the whole thing stinks of "well, her game couldn't be that good so she fucked her way to the top" which is just a particular example of the insistence that any woman in the business fucked her way to where she is now. It's disgusting. As for the distinction between "sexual" and "romantic", what business do we have making that characterization? You can have a sexual relationship, a romantic relationship or both. And you can have a romantic relationship while cheating on someone. Protonk (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The inaccuracy was a typo and is plainly evident as a typo from looking over the Zoe post in its original form prior to editing. Nowhere does Gjoni actually make or hint at the allegations that are being claimed to have come from him. With one of the other allegations of cheating he explicitly says she is quite qualified and did not need to have sex with a person to get an advantage. People saw the post, perhaps not reading it entirely, and drew their own conclusions. I am not suggesting we make this article a venue for schoolyard gossip about someone's life. My suggestion is rather simple, instead of saying "including that she had a 'romantic relationship' with a Kotaku journalist" in the lede we say "including that she cheated on him with a Kotaku journalist". Further down in the article body I would support, at a bare minimum, saying "cheated on him with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson, among others." Truthfully, we could justify making mention of "five guys burgers and fries" since multiple reliable sources mention this term in connection with the original allegations and it did actually play a big role in the origins of GamerGate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

While Gjoni's allegation may be that she cheated on him, that factor about it doesn't matter; only that he claimed she had a relation with Grayson, and then others took that up as stating she was using Grayson to get positive reviews. We do not have to lower our standards to cover Gjoni's claims when the bulk of them simply are BLP violations and gossipmongering; only one facet going forward is key from that. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Then, as I suggested below, we should remove anything that uses Gjoni's blog post against GamerGate or that mentions Gjoni except noting the blog post sparked off the controversy in the relevant section about the allegations against Quinn. Everything else concerning Gjoni and the blog post should get nuked if we aren't allowed to describe the exact nature of the allegation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Brad Wardell interview

I don't know if this is notable, reliable, or not, but I believe this is the first time a game developer has really weighed in: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/gamergate-interviews/12397-Brad-Wardell-GamerGate-Interview

I leave this here for others to use, or not use, at their discretion. 2601:B:3100:5E9:6439:B30B:3F8C:B85E (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I self-correct. A number of articles from various industry professionals, spanning a variety of different views, were posted simultaneously: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/gamergate-interviews This was merely the first one I encountered. 2601:B:3100:5E9:6439:B30B:3F8C:B85E (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Technically there is also a similar set from female game devs, though the Escapist has come under some flak on this in both presentation and the fact the female devs all replied anonymously. (in addition to one of the male devs having a reputation in the present situation). I'd rather cut down on the singular opinions here only due to how that is creating the bias here. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

New article from Reason magazine

Part 1 (suggesting part 2 may be coming).

Yes, Reason is liberal-leaining and so definitely siding proGG on this but it is also a person not involved in the gaming community and for all other purposes an RS, for at least setting up some of the rationale of what proGG side is looking for. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, this is the same article published in RealClearPolitics. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

With some slight changes:

Note: This version of the article incorporates a minor correction to the original, which incorrectly stated that the Kotaku editor who contributed to Zoe Quinn's crowdfunding account went on to review her game. It also contains some additional information in the first paragraph on the political profile of GamerGate supporters.

Willhesucceed (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It still contains a number of unsubstantiated or outright debunked claims about Quinn that may make it tricky from a WP:BLP aspect. Also Reason is basically the house magazine of the Libertarian movement, and in no sense "Liberal". Artw (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

However, unlike the pub in RCP (which admits its an aggregator and not editorialized), Reason is, making at least some of the comments usable. I did see the "mistake" about Jade for example, but there's other factors that are completely legit "here's what proGG is looking for" statements that are not refuted by anything else we have. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Useful for her opinions, if we decide they're interesting enough to merit inclusion. Not usable for allegations about living people. She states her POV on her sleeve right up front by comparing "SJWs" to "cultist zealots who enforce the party line with the fervor of Mao's Red Guards." So like The Week piece, et al., it's an op-ed rather than a reported news story. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The difference between the Cooper piece and the Young piece, is that the former did not really make any factual claims about anything. It was pure opinion, while the latter contains many factual claims, backed by sources. Her opinionated statements should be treated as opinion, but her factual statements should be given greater consideration.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think we can use this for any BLP (outside of some claims that proGG have been harassed or doxxed), but her other points are reasonable for inclusion to document the proGG side. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any actual sources for the key claims about living people, just links to the same tired, accusatory conspiracy nonsense at best and argument by assertion at worst. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to go down that path, all of the articles based solely on Quinn's claims will have to be removed, as that's as good as being unsourced. Goodbye, New Yorker! Willhesucceed (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a big difference between conspiracies theories that have no sourcing to back it up at all, and someone claiming they are being issued death threats and harassment that can be verified by looking at social media to see what is happening. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see any conspiracy theories in Young's piece, nor anything significant about living people not already covered by other sources. Her characterization of "Social Justice Warriors" is no less inflammatory than the characterizations of GamerGate we find in countless sources being used in this article for factual details.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that this article makes claims about identifiable living people, which we treat significantly differently than claims about an anonymous, amorphous Twitter-hashtag group. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Escapism article

No consensus for the source, discussion has gone off topic. - Bilby (talk) 08:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This article http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/features/12383-Game-Developer-GamerGate-Interviews-Shed-Light-on-Women-in-Games interviews numerous developers who claim that gamergate is really about SJWs censoring artistic expression using accusations of misogyny and homophobia, rather than Zoe Quinn (the fact that so many people want to make it about her seems to prove their point). This should be reflected in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.27.69 (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC) The article is interesting, but it simply reflects the opinions of different developers (some of whom, such as Damion Schubert, are opposed to GamerGate). As personal opinions they may certainly be helpful, but what is needed is more critical analysis over opinion. That's probably something that will only emerge with time, though. - Bilby (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC) So, just so we are clear here, fighting with "SJWs" and NOT journalistic integrity? Gotcha. :-) Artw (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC) You missed the point completely. Censoring developers for not falling in line with your ideology IS lacking in journalistic integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.27.69 (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Hey man, personally I'd love to have that article included, but unless there are these so called reliable sources saying these people are "relevant" to the issue, you can't really include them. I think for example, Adam Baldwin's views are needed, since he's a very known person, cited in a lot of sites as the hashtag creator, and that it's not in the article yet Loganmac (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Baldwin is currently mentioned as the originator of the hashtag, in the "Backlash and social media campaign" section. - Bilby (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC) And what exactly are Baldwins qualifications to be making assessments of journalistic ethics? His background as far as I know is not academics, journalism or ethics - its acting. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Isn't The Escapist an RS? They vetted all these people. Yes, in that we trust them to accurately depict the opinions of those they interviewed. - Bilby (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Okay, so we have an RS interviewing people they describe as long term and influential game developers giving their options on what GG is about. What's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.27.69 (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC) So their opinions might be usable as opinions, along with the opinions of female developers. On the other hand, their opinions have not been fact-checked, which means we aren't going to include any accusations or allegations about living people that they may have made. If someone wants to propose an addition to the article based on the two Escapist interview series, let's see it and see if we can get a consensus to add something under protection. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC) This seems particularly relevant "We have removed the testimony of Slade Villena, known as RogueStar, after we've received evidence that he has harassed some contributors to The Escapist." Whereas Quinn and female developers are viciously harassed high profile male developers are amongst the harassers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC) The lede should be changed to reflect less undue weight on Zoe as the reason for GG and more on the fact that developers are unhappy with journalists harassing them with labels like misogynist. 184.64.27.69 (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC) That's an unsupported fringe view. I've not seen a single source that says developers claim they being harassed by journalists. (I recognize there are some proGG people that say they are being harassed, but this is neither certain proGG developers, or harassment from journalists) --MASEM (t) 05:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC) The interviews basically state this. Yes, my language was chosen for rhetorical purposes. But the previous editor turned the fact that one interview was pulled due to the interviewee harassing an Escapist journalist into a poor Zoe moment, without knowing what they said or their views on GG. The fact of the matter is, people want this to be about Zoe because it makes the GG movement look bad. The truth is, this article explains the real reasons developers, as well as average gamers, are upset with gaming media. There is absolutely nothing fringe about it.184.64.27.69 (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC) oh wah wah wah - i suddenly got a clue that the companies that pay for the ads that keep my favorite game website afloat get glowing reviews that their games dont deserve so i am going to send death threats to high profile women in the industry because its obviously sex that caused this problem and you people need to ignore the death threats and listen to meeeeeee!!!!!! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC) A few do, but not all, and as such that represents a fringe view that we cannot turn this around on. We can talk that some proGG believe this is about the journalistic problems, including some developers, but there's no way with the prevailing attitude in the mainstream/non-VG press that we can de-emphasize Quinn's involvement. --MASEM (t) 06:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC) The first editor simply went on a childish rant which completely missed the point: it is harassment to call someone a misogynist simply because you don't like the outfit you gave a female character, and giving bad reviews to a game for this reason is an abuse of journalistic power. To the second editor, these are all important game developers (as vetted by an RS) and there are a good number of them saying this, so calling it a fringe view is an arbitrary reason to exclude them.184.64.27.69 (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC) No, it's not, and no, it's not. You have, on accident, gone right to the root of why GamerGate is not taken seriously by anyone with a clue. If that's GamerGate's complaint, it literally has no clue what journalism is or means. Calling something or someone "misogynist" is a subjective opinion. While it is possible to express a subjective opinion in a harassing manner (for example, bombarding a person's e-mail box with spam or doxing them), the mere expression of the opinion in a public forum is not harassment in any way, shape or form. A "game review" is, by its very definition, the subjective opinion of the writer about the game. The writer of a game review is expressing their opinion about the game. There is nothing remotely resembling "an abuse of journalistic power" in a writer stating in a review that they believe the game in question contains misogynistic portrayals of women. What do you even think a review is, anyway? Have you ever read any reviews of film, music, TV shows or other forms of cultural expression? Because that's literally what reviewers do — explore and analyze a work's message, themes, content, ideology, etc. Reviews of cultural compositions are not lists of how many guns they have or what FPS they run at. Video games are now being taken seriously as a significant part of our modern world's culture. They're that important. As someone who has been playing video games since the Commodore 64 was a thing, I happen to think that's pretty awesome. Welcome to the next level. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC) There's a couple of problems with using the article here, but they're more to do with the aim The Escapist had when writing it. The article wasn't intended to be a general survey of developers, and so we don't know how they were sampled, and the selection is quite small. Thus we can't assume that this group of developers is representative of developers as a whole. Even then, their views aren't consistent - Costikyan and Schubert are very much saying that is about misogyny, even though that is a minority view in this selection. We could potentially use the article to source individual opinions, rather than making general statements, but to do that we'd need to evaluate who the developers are, and only slightly over half gave their real name. In the end, this may well be an important piece in the debate, but like the previous article about women developers, it isn't, in itself, something that fits with what Wikipedia is doing. None of that says that it isn't reliable or valuable or even incorrect - just that we can get lots of opinions, but opinions aren't really what we need to focus on right now. - Bilby (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC) The game developers in the article are very clearly stating that there is a culture of bullying in the games journalist industry which sacrifices artistic expression to push an agenda. Apparently that culture has found its way here.184.64.27.69 (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Some of them are, yes, and perhaps that is true here, as it is elsewhere. In regards to WP, we're limited by the aims of the project, which means that we have to rely on certain types of articles over others. It's not that we can't use opinion pieces, like these, but we have to use them sparingly and only when there is a clear reason to use the opinions. This situation of GamerGate isn't one that Wikipedia is set up to cover well - WP will, I think, but only when enough time has passed for the sorts of sources that it needs to have emerged and there is some distance. - Bilby (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC) For definitions of "culture of bullying" that equal "we think some games are needlessly misogynistic, therefore we're going to call them on it and ask them to do better." Which is exactly what ethical journalism does. Once again, the schizophrenia of GamerGate is laid bare. It claims to be a movement about "journalism ethics," but is resting its case on a couple game developers saying that they don't like it when video game journalists express honest opinions about their games. Which is it? Does GamerGate want honest video game journalism, or does it want regurgitated press releases telling you exactly what developers want you to think? Because the latter is the opposite of ethical journalism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Okay, so you've made it clear that arguing with the Wikipedia wing of the SJW movement is useless. But, to sum it up for those of you interested, numerous game developers believe that a cabal of SJW's review games based on their rather silly agenda rather than the quality of the game. This is a breach of journalistic integrity because it affects developers sales if they don't bow down to the pressure. It also affects them personally as they are harassed by being labeled misogynist (using a very stupid definition of the term). Meanwhile, a narrative is being pushed by the people who have been exposed that this whole thing is just an excuse to harass women because everybody identifies themselves as a gamer is a crazy misogynist. And you ridiculous people just buy it. I also want to add that on all the strings on the subject, this is what is talked about. No one says 'hey, that Zoe Quinn is a bitch! Let's go harass her because she's a woman!' Well there are other clear cut cases of nepetism being discussed, but no RS will touch them because it makes them look bad. Gamers are sick of their hobby being tainted by self righteous idiots with no understanding of human nature.184.64.27.69 (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC) What should be clear is that arguing without reliably published sources that reflect proportionately how the mainstream views the subject will not do anything but fill 10 pages with repetitive whinging. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC) What is clear is that no mainstream reliable source takes seriously the argument that "developers don't like journalists reviewing their games negatively, therefore journalism bias." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)− You people want to pretend that this is all about Zoe Quinn. When she has almost nothing to do with this. You want to repeat the narrative the people who are being exposed want you to. Lucky for you those people control the narrative in RSs. Unfortunately for you you are making yourselves look very silly.

Source saying the gaming press is biased

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2014/10/11/gamergate-does-games-journalism-have-a-liberal-bias-problem/

"These sites shame readers and proponents of GamerGate with attempts to appeal to their humanism, effectively coercing emotional responses. Instead of objectively reporting on a cultural dilemma, these journalists become personally involved."

"Much of this content is sensationalist in nature and is so saturated with bias that the writers neglect their duty to present clear, dual-sided content. What readers are given instead is eerily similar to propaganda."

"Sottek’s piece feels like a personal tirade, a kind of rant, where he attempts to unceremoniously dismantle the movement while being oblivious to his favoritism of games journalist Leigh Alexander, games developer Zoe Quinn and left-wing feminist critic/activist Anita Sarkeesian."

"These outlets conveniently overlook the swath of offensive content found in Alexander’s social media interactions on Twitter, which have since been deleted."

"It could even be argued that key websites support Alexander by writing smear content because of personal favoritism–not professional courtesy–and used their high standings in the media to retaliate."

"Attacking GamerGate seems like a knee-jerk reaction to a very real threat–one that could out the media’s established, almost-incestuous relationship with itself. But even still the liberal media refuses to take responsibility for its part of the cultural rift simply because it doesn’t see what it’s done wrong."

"This is not a media that’s free of corruption. This is a media that freely caters to liberal activism and shakes its finger at you for saying its wrong."

These are the most interesting quotes. Racuce (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

BrightSideOfNews.com is not considered a reliable source as Derek Strickland is not a member of its staff and is simply someone who has been using the website to publish content on Gamergate that would not get posted anywhere else.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is unfortunate, but thanks for pointing this out Racuce (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If it's been published there, it will have gone through the editorial team. Therefore it's RS. Willhesucceed (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Similar pieces by the author at the website have been pointed out to not be reliable sources on the Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn pages. Strickland is not a staff writer and BrightSideOfNews.com's format just goes "send us a story and we might publish it".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Source those claims. Willhesucceed (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have to source shit here but if you insist Talk:Zoe Quinn/Archive 1#Possible sourcing for controversy., Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 1#Finding Sources, Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 4#Why was my submission closed?, Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 5#NPOV tag, Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 6#Undue weight tag, Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 7#Asian sources / Patreon / Quinn, Talk:Anita Sarkeesian#Pieces discussing general criticism. Pieces from Bright Side of News have been consistently rejected as reliable sources, primarily because Derek Strickland is not on the payroll for the website and they have no information available on their guidelines for submission or their editorial policies. They invite anyone who wants to publish something through them to send them an article. It's self-publishing being vaguely given some credence. I can also see that you, Willhesucceed, have consistently pushed for pieces written by Strickland to be used in this article. Drop the stick.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be applied to the source used from Time Magazine since she was not the official writer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exefisher (talk • contribs) 11:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but Time Magazine has a history of editorial oversight. BrightSideOfNews.com does not. Stop trying to get the Leigh Alexander piece removed because she was critical of the movement and then her website had its advertising pulled in retaliation.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the Time article gets to stay because Wiki contributors say so. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Willhesucceed (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Time is an established publication with an editorial history that everyone knows about. BSN* is not. Drop the stick. This is just the same gater shit over and over again. You want unbiased press but you praise the press that's highly biased in your favor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

More strawman from you. Exefisher (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have yet to see a decent argument given for why BSN is not a reliable source. Derek Strickland has extensive experience in gaming journalism and BSN requires that any submissions include sources and be reviewed by the editorial staff, even if we assume the staff listing is an exhaustive up-to-date list. We cite the rantings of a late-night comedy talk show host regarding the state of journalism and even use her to rag on Milo a bit, so I think this source should at least be given more meaningful consideration.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

His writing has been excluded on every other page related to this topic because of the BLP concerns in his writing, the fact that he is. It a staff member of bright side of news, and that their submissions process is not known. It only says that maybe they will give the wrter credit. Why is Strickland writing for this website and none of the other ones he apparently has a history with? Why is this man's opinion, being touted as a neutral and unbiased source by the pro-Gamergate editors, so important that we must use it to refute everything else in the article when no one else on the Internet will publish his writing?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You can't just cry "Not reliable" without reason and have that be enough for policy reasons. None of the discussions you point to establish any consensus on the source and the reasons you provide here are completely absurd. Many outlets do not explicitly lay out in detail how they review submissions. The fact it is subject to editorial review is important. The fact they demand that submissions come with sources is important. The fact the author has long-time experience in gaming journalism is important. All I see in all those discussions are a few people who clearly disagree with what the writer is saying coming up with a bunch of invalid reasons to exclude him as a source.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

An unreliable source declares a reliable source is biased. That's the beginning and the end of the discussion right there. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Brianna Wu

[7], was following this last night, this appears to be first story about it (and do not: gamasutra has put a statement that they are involved due to the Intel piece - that's okay to use them). However, as she is not notable (for a standalone page), I 'm not sure if we need to include yet as another example. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Venturebeat too so we can avoid the dependent source. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Re/Code has it now as well: [8] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Kotaku:[9]

Worthwhile quote there: "I was literally watching 8chan go after me in their specific chatroom for Gamergate," she told Kotaku today. "They posted my address, and within moments I got that death threat." Artw (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Not notable, already countless mentions of harassment, it was a throwaway twitter account. Maybe a one sentence mention with other figures harassed. But this will fall into yet again another "according to Kotaku writer A GamerGate is misogynyst, according to Gamasutra writer B GamerGate is misogynyst" Loganmac (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Your claim that it's not notable is interesting, yet reliable sources state otherwise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. We only need a sentencet to mention here, up where we talk Phil Fish. I know there's been talk of how many have been harassed/death threated/doxxed (and claims on both sides) but the only major ones that have been reported are Quinn, Sarkeenstain, Fish, and now Wu. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Milo has also been mentioned here and there, including in the Kokatu article linked above. And the Slate twitter piece mentioned other online harassment, although not as serious as what has been covered. It may be worth thinking about an "Online harassment" in the "Backlash and social media campaign" section, although we're probably getting to a point where a discussion about an overall reorganisation is perhaps merited. - Bilby (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Milo was also mentioned in the latest RealClearPolitics and Slate pieces. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Also in The Verge. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

And Destructoid. I'll start working up a proposal section shortly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually this might be best: Polygon, which includes confirmation that the police are investigating. Again, we only need like a sentence for this, given that she is not that significant yet to the overall issue, but it is a noted example of a problem. --MASEM (t) 00:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A sentence, a paragraph or whatever we see fit. Artw (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

For now only a sentence or two are warranted. That is the way it is with Phil Fish.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps now her previous article on misogyny and sexism in gaming can also be included in the article as it was before?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

We can add she was harassed from that before, so not an unknown in this, but the rest of the details would bog this down. Again, a sentence or two is literally all that is needed if we decide to add this. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Article predates the controversy so it should not be included. I think reliable sources about this incident already mention her previous writings and experiences.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Now in The Boston Globe. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

We will be definitely including that source, over any of the ones above. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail (UK) for some more national newspaper coverage. This event seems to be getting quite a lot of coverage outside the gaming/tech press. 78.105.4.241 (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Brianna Wu appeared on MSNBC's The Reid Report this afternoon to discuss the death threats and GamerGate. Viewable here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Definitely would at minimum want to point out that over 1.2 million tweets have been made about GG , as to demonstrate the size/scope of the matter (currently the article gives no idea of the size/scope of the matter). I'm sure there's a few other points in that. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

New Guardian article

[10] It's actually more about how difficult it is to report neutrally on Gamergate due to the various tactics that the GG side uses. Definitely need to work this in if only to describe the broader press reaction to GG as difficult to judge and understand that side. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have been thinking there should be some effort to go into the politicization of the controversy and this actually offers a good take on it. The Bright Side of News being discussed further up provides another take.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 October 2014

Edit the phrase "...developer Zoe Quinn was subjected to after an ex-boyfriend posted numerous allegations on his blog in August 2014, including that she had"

Should be "...allegations on her blog" 101.113.4.114 (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It was posted on Gjoni's blog, so "his" is correct. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Indiecade in the limelight of GG

[11]. Not sure what can be included immediately from it, but it highlights the indie scene in light of the GG controversy. --MASEM (t) 06:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's the same thing over and over again. Maybe if it mentioned the IGF/IndieCade scandal lol Loganmac (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

BBC Radio Business Matters

Engadget guy specifically attributes the harassment to internet culture, not gaming culture.

Woman says corruption/ethics/professionalism concerns are valid. "The journalistic ethics in the coverage of games are really, really something to be worried about."

Wu's thing is connected to Gamergate, somehow, despite lack of any evidence.

The rest is old hat.

It starts at about 17:00. http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/business/business_20141014-0100a.mp3

Willhesucceed (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I see GamerGate is gathering attention from really mainstream places, MSNBC did a interview with two antiGG people which couldn't be more one-sided if they tried but, well. While the BBC stream was kinda neutral Loganmac (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

So, between this and Slate talking about Twitter and Forbes, we seem to have a question as to whether this is caused by gaming culture or internet culture. That seems worthy of inclusion. Willhesucceed (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Could this article be more biased?

From the lede to the end of the article, this is heavily skewed towards a feminist viewpoint. Articles are cherry-picked to support one point of view, and weasel words are used constantly to support one side. Come on, Wikipedia editors, I know we can do better than this. Lithorien (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are written using only content that can be verified by reliable sources and must not give undue weight to minority view points not represented in reliable sources. In his instance, that means that this "feminist viewpoint" you describe is what predominates in the media regarding Gamergate as it is seen as conservative gamers trying to exclude feminist discussion of video games from the Internet by means of threatening to kill at current count 3 different women who dared to 1) have a sexual partner who happens to write for a cpvideo game news site and made a video game they didn't really like, 2) provide feminist commentary for video games that they do not really like, and 3) I don't really remember what Brianna Wu did to receive the most recently reported death threat. However, this content in the article presently does not actively exclude the content regarding seeking out conflicts of interest in the video games media and industry. It is just at none has been found that is reported in reliable source, at least none regardi he independent games scene rather than Bungee paying that one guy to do game reviews in front of bags of Doritos and bottles and/or cans of Mountain Dew. If you have any actual specific complaints, please raise them instead of vaguely complaining about something that has been discussed to death on this article's talk page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Weren't you leaving to focus on other stuff lol that lasted a lot Loganmac (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I had free time during a layover.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Except as explained several times before we don't have to flood the article with one view because the other view cannot be readily documented. There is a major problem in that approach to villainize the entire other side. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Lithorien, "Heavily skewed" in this case just means that due weight has overall been given to reliable, mainstream sources. And those sources tend not to be in favor of foul-mouthed, anti-feminist conspiracy theorists. We've always had problems with systemic bias regarding stuff like the disproportionate number of articles on video games, military history and whatnot. This and the inane campaigning at Anita Sarkeesian is actually really part of the same bias, although in these cases, it's way past innocent quirkiness.

All I can say is: start getting used to the presentation of gender issues not going your own way. Even with female users in the minority, most dedicated users aren't keen on giving YouTube-ranters, Reddit regulars and other shrill amateurs undue representation on Wikipedia.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You have too much faith in the editors. When the bias are systematic, nothing changes. Only way to fix this article is to make it unprotected and available for the mass to edit. Delay this enough and this article becomes THE Truth and a source of fact. 76.27.230.7 (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's content is based on verifiable facts, and not "THE truth" that the Gamergate movement subscribes to.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not certain I would label the problem in bias in this article a 'feminist' one necessarily. If anything it is more anti-gamer in nature. Feminism doesn't inherently mean calling something misogynistic for example, even if some of us might observe it is thrown around too freely based on unbacked reasoning amongst those communities, that is more like a problem that sometimes crosses over with feminism (much like sexism can be a problem that crosses over into gaming) and not an inherent attribute that would qualify describing the problem as based in that movement. Ranze (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

requesting 5 sources for ingrainedness of MISOGYNY

@Masem: regarding your removal of a reference where you said:

There are at minimum 5 sources for this. This was established on talk page before, discuss there and do not change again

I would like to see these 5 references, or be provided a link to where they were provided previously.

Keeping in mind that this is about misogyny, not sexism. This dispute is about calling misogyny ingrained, not calling sexism ingrained. Sexism is a broad issue I am not objecting to, as I see it ingrained in pretty much anything.

As misogyny is hatred of women, I would like to see these 5 sources you claim support the allegation that hatred of women is ingrained within gaming culture.

I believe that if multiple sources DO support that, that we should list them all as references on the page. Listing shadow references doesn't make any sense.

We currently only list one reference, a 2011 article from VentureBeat, and I supplied a 2012 article from VentureBeat which contradicts the casual claim of it being ingrained, which explicitly states in the title that gaming culture is NOT misogynistic.

Unless there is a basis for thinking McLaughlin a more reliable reporter than Yang, I think you ought to explain why we leave Rus's article up as a reference while you have deleted Joe's article as a reference, when they come from the same news site.

I am open to considering your sources, but if you won't link to them in the article, you should present them here on request. Previous replies I have seen have moved the goalposts of the issue and not addressed misogyny directly in references. Ranze (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You're arguing a different point. The current situation is about the sexism and misogyny in the culture, whether from the harassment or just as it has been for sometime. Those are the five references at the end of the first paragraph. Your edit was saying because one author said otherwise, we can't say it's about misogyny but that's clearly not the case. Now on the other end of the argument, a very different one, is the claim that these have been issues for some time, and we've had this discussion before in the archives that point to several points in VG's industry past that discuss both terms ([12]), but for the purposes of establishing that it's been around, we need that one source for the word "ingrained". Your source is only one voice, and also is a clear blog piece and not a reviewed work and such is unallowable as a source. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

To be more exact - in the lead, the broad summary of sources clearly shows that sexism and misogyny are long-standing issues in the industry and to go into any more detail in the lead is bogging that down. In the body, we can (if necessary) present Yang's opinion as a counter statement, though again, I caution that as a clear opinion piece and not necessarily one with journalistic standards, we may not be able to use it. But if it usable, its in the body of the article. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The broad summary of sources? Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it since that seems more like a personal opinion. You have to cite the sources and proof that there actually is misogyny -- if it is just a reporter or a cluster of reporters claiming such a thing then it isn't worth anything. Only if the reporters themselves provide actual proof to their claims can they be taken as anything but just an opinion panel. Like mentioned before, sexism and misogyny are two different things and I'd argue that sexism itself hasn't been proven either. For instance if a woman isn't hired because the men there don't want to work with women, guess what? That is NOT sexism, that is just exclusion. Likewise, misogyny is hatred of women, if you want to say somebody practice misogyny then you would have to actually prove that they hate women. But that is the problem with how media allows feminism and people to get away with this kind of crap. Since calling somebody a misogynist could land them sued for slander and libel, people instead call institutions and groups "misogynist". I.E they are claiming that the core reason of a group hates women. In other words they are claiming that the game industry hates women as a sex. ORLY? and their proof? Well, that is why we are asking you to actually post proof. If you don't you are just turning wikipedia into a propaganda page for feminism.--Thronedrei (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There are several sources in my link above, including two GDC talks from developers, citing misogyny from the industry/content creation side - maybe not intentional but prevailing through video games through the decades. (And no, the definition of misogyny is not "hatred" but "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women", the latter the focus of most every discussion on the issue) --MASEM (t) 17:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Above where? Please post links again in reply to my reply here. Also, no you are incorrect; misogyny MEANS hatred for women: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/misogyny You probably believe it is dislike because of this source yes?: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/misogyny But even the Oxford dictionary mentions that it is derived from the word hatred. So just because Oxford is trying to redefine the word for some odd reason, does not mean that it is correct. Reality is still reality, not what we pretend it is. --Thronedrei (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Repeating from a few comments above: [13] I have listed several articles. And while dictionaries use only the "hatred" def, at least, online, the fact that there's other variations of that means that we cannot assume that people are using "misogyny" to mean that the industry "hates" women, but certainly the other definitions apply. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I asked you to list and link to the sources again, not link to a page where you had "somewhere" had linked to a source. I'm not 100% sure exactly what articles you claim as proof see? That said reading the replies there I notice it as as full of fluff and no real proof. The only thing you can cite is that these sites CLAIM that there was misogyny -- but these sites are second hand sources and should be treated as such. At the very least if you want to still keep the lie that there is misogyny (even though it can be misconstrued as if there actually is) -- you need to make sure that it is absolutely made clear that there is no proof in the articles themselves but that they are just wild claims spouted by the blog sources. For instance many of these stupid blogs use the whole trolling as "evidence" that there is sexism, they claim that rape threats are sexist... but that just shows how utterly bafflingly stupid they are. Threats of rape is not sexist, only a sexist feminist would claim this since rape can happen to both genders. If a man or a woman threatens a woman with rape, then this is a threat, not a sexist comment. Again, this just shows how stupid people are. Which brings me back to the whole "Misogyny" discussion. No and absolutely no -- you can't use the word misogyny to describe people that are distrustful of women since it is used as an umbrella word. You have other words you can use instead such as "prejudice against women" or "mistrust" if that is what you are going for. That said, these blogs are beyond stupid. Where is the prejudice? It is all based on facts. Look at Sarkeesian and Quinn, they did exactly what people knew they would do, they started creating crap and ruining things. A woman's brain is different than that of a mans, it is not prejudice to expect what is biology. --Thronedrei (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"We're not sexist! Women create crap and ruin things!" OK then. <facepalm> NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Reality is sexist now? Go on? Tell me how referring to what actually happens is sexist. Sexism is a prejudice; stereotyping and discriminating based on gender right? But it isn't prejudice if the stereotype is actually true. Sexism only exists if the stereotype is false. But that is a problem many feminists and SJW's have, they believe that stereotypes don't exist.--Thronedrei (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

How fucking hilarious is the paranoid capacity for unthink. Now even Oxford has joined the conspiracy against the poor whinging gamergaters and sexual fixations and harassment! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read again. As Ranze (below this post) pointed out, I wasn't saying that Oxford did it because of Gamergate; I was making the claim that post modernism was at fault.--Thronedrei (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe @Thronedrei: speculated as to why Oxford was changing the meaning of the word. He did not mention this event being related to gaming, so I believe you are constructing a straw man to misrepresent Thronedrei's commentary and should stop doing that. Ranze (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Harassment occurring does not make harassment ingrained. This is tantamount to saying fiance-punching is ingrained in football just because it has happened with Ray Rice. I already dismantled the 5 references at the end of the first paragraph in our previous discussions, not a single one far as I recall used terms like 'ingrained' in associating misogyny with gamer culture. The burden is on you to explain here how those references support the use of such a strong word which composes a strong condemnative statement about gamer-culture. You only have 1 author saying it is ingrained, and there is at least 1 author saying the culture isn't misogynistic (more strongly, and more recently) the other sources do not make claimed about the culture overall or it's ingrained attributes. The discussions we had before had bad rebuttals I never got a chance to reply to because they got archived so quickly, you never defended those 5 references as conveying this message, nobody did. The OR section criticism stands: saying misogyny is ingrained in game culture is still original research, because you're quote-mining a single article on a news site while removing contradicting articles from the same news site. There is no uniform viewpoint, so Wikipedia should not speak as if there is.

I call on you to directly show us where these sources call misogyny ingrained. If you want to change it to long-standing, feel free to edit the text and argue on that end. It seems to me that when called to task for 1 term, it's flipped to another in a cup game. You call Yang's article an 'opinion piece', what qualifies you to say that Yang's is opinion while McLaughlin's is journalistic, exactly? Ranze (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You're mixing apples and oranges. The five references at the end are not supporting the claim of "ingrained" but instead that GG is about sexism and misogyny in the culture. There is one used source to identify that these aren't new topics but I've pointed to where you can find several more sources that assert this. And again, the culture is not just gamers, it is gamers and devs and publishers - everyone being "guilty" here, not just an isolated group. And again, your source is not usable as a counterpoint to the many sources we have as it is just an opinion piece. --MASEM (t) 00:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a settled issue. Further rehashing of a settled issue is disruptive. Tarc (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hardly a settled issue. Saying it is "ingrained . . . in the gaming community" is a generalization about the gaming community being deeply sexist and misogynistic in nature, which is a very serious allegation (just so everyone remembers the severity of the term, "misogyny" literally means "hatred of women"). Nothing I have read even remotely convinces me that this is an accurate description or sufficiently backed by reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The key is that we're talking the culture which is fully inclusion of gamers and developers and publishers, so it's a broad allegation that applies across the board. If it was specifically only for gamers that the phrasing was intended, I would definitely be asking for more, but by pointing to the culture, we are addressing "everyone". --MASEM (t) 00:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

So, are you saying that developers hate women? or that game-companies do? Or that most "gamers" do? See the problem here? You are using a blanket claim which you don't actually go into specifics with. Since the blanket statement includes any and all there is no need for the person making the claim to actually provide any proof or so it seems. So exactly what are you saying? Are you saying that the "culture" of gaming is created or based on hatred of women? Or... what exactly ARE you saying?--Thronedrei (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you're using too strong/narrow a definition of misogyny. "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women" is what is referred to here, with the last part being the more applicable focus. And this is mostly from the dev/publishing side that can be sourced as a long term problem, and very difficult to paint gamers as such until only these recent harassment attacks. "Culture" is the proper term, though again, I would rather say "industry" since that's where the problem is clearly originated from. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Umm no. Misogyny might be an umbrella word that is both used for mistrust for women as well as hatred but that is the problem isn't it? If somebody mistrusts the intentions of women as a group based on their gender then they are mistrustful right? That does NOT mean that they hate women. However since the word misogyny (as you very well know) also means hatred for women, such a word can't be allowed when it does not actually describe what it is intended to describe. So if there is contempt or whatever for women -- then write THAT instead. Don't throw around the word misogyny as if it didn't actually mean hatred for women, because it does.--Thronedrei (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Because it is not just one single "aspect" of the definition of misogyny that's an issue here. The largest component is the prejudice side but there has definitely been cases in the past of people in the position of power in game devs/pubs that have shown outright dislike and hatred towards woman. Similarly, I've read many proGG threads, and I would certainly characters most of that as prejudice but there are also clear signs of dislike and outright hatred. The umbrella term is the most accurate term to use. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all, since you are not a valid source yourself masem, saying "I have read" is not a valid argument, at least not one that can be applied to writing a wiki article. Secondly, please provide proof that people in the position of power in the gamer industry has done anything unfavorable (as far as the gaming community go) because that they hate women. See, even if it was true -- you can't use it unless you can actually prove it. It would be slander and libel. That said, when you are writing an article that is trying to cast a group in an unfavorable light you need to be extra careful that the article actually represents the group and not just a few individuals within it. Only if the group as a whole "hate women" can you make the claim that it hates women. For instance Valerie Solanas shot Andy Warhol, she was a feminist... so among the many feminists at least one was trying to murder somebody. Does that mean that we should brand feminists as a bunch of potential murderers? See how that works? YOu need to be consistent masem.--Thronedrei (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, look at past sources I have linked for the history of problems with how females are treated in the industry. Second, we are not treating the definition of misogyny as "solely" the hatred of women. That's not how the sources are using the word either (at least, the ones that are less biased) - they use the word because it is accurate - it doesn't take much to see that those involved in the harassment have primarily targetted women - but calling those attacks "misogyny" is a less harsh than calling out those attacks as "hatred of women", and so is a much more balanced word. This is also true of the word in the past for game development - unequal numbers, pay differences, contempt for women, etc. It's exactly the right word to describe the problems in the past, and the problems currently. (But I also will note, when you start looking at areas beyond video games where there are similar problems, the word "misogyny" is the flavor of the day, to speak, and used whenver it can be injected. However, we have documented evidenced that misogyny in the past was actually called that. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It is sourced, that's all there is to it. The present wording was somewhat of a compromise from the previous version as well, but now, suddenly, it isn't good enough? Do you think you're fooling anyone here? The slanted pro-GG editors scream and demand a change, and their editing suggestions are met halfway. Then a few weeks later, they come back again because THAT previously agreed=-upon wording is now no longer any good. So you're going to approach this "death by 1,000 cuts" style until it is in exact tune with the minority pro-GG point-of-view. Not gonna happen. Tarc (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"ingrained issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community". Ingrained isn't needed at all. Ingrained means a habit, belief, or attitude firmly fixed or established. Calling the gaming community sexists and misogynists in the first sentence is clearly controversial. Diyoev (talk) 07:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I had less a problem with "long-standing" than "ingrained" as the former only suggests there have been issues of sexism and misogyny in the community for a long time, which does not cast that issue on the whole community. To say it is "ingrained" is to effectively stain the entire community as sexist and misogynist.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

At one point I had used the word "video game industry" as to reflect that the producers of the content were aware they were creating this problem, also taking some of the blame off the gamer side (as other wording can do potentially). --MASEM (t) 01:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: I think you ought to choose a single role regarding this article. You should either be a moderator (as we see you using your administrative powers in the below section) or advocate your interpretation of this conflict. You acting as an administrator here is a conflict of interest when your are simultaneously engaging in POV-pushing.

Masem if the 5 references are about GamerGate and not gaming culture, why exactly did you bring them up here? If these references did not support your declaration (you have made it yours by restoring it) about gamer culture then it was misleading for you to refer to them during your reversion.

You continually claim 'many sources' but have not listed them here or on the page. As you admit, the five you referred to are related to whether or not misogyny is a factor in the gamerGate controversy, not in gaming culture as a whole, leaving you bereft of references.

@Tarc: settled this issue isn't, as TDA points out, and your effort to squelch conversation through intimidation by throwing accusations like 'disruptive' around is itself disruptive to discussion, where we aim to properly vet all sources to see whether they adequately and fairly support statements Wikipedians have made here.

Getting back to Masem's further claims here, although I agree 'community' is broad and can apply to developers/gamers, widening the net does not strengthen any arguments for labeling misogyny as 'ingrained'. Developers have created several characters with moustaches, and the gaming community includes gamers who are fans of moustaches, and may even grow them. The mere presence of a factor does not qualify is to say 'moustaches are ingrained in gaming'. Isolated presence is not overwhelming presence, and if you want to upgrade the former to the latter, you must properly reference it, which has not been done.

Getting back to Tarc's further claim, it hasn't been properly sourced, because it is only displaying a single source showing a single isolated view. No valid reasoning has been introduced as to why this sole viewpoint is being portrayed as truth, when I have provided a source of EQUAL WEIGHT which has a contradicting viewpoint.

Tarc I am finding difficulty assuming your good faith when you paint this particular issue as pro-GG in nature. This actually isn't about GamerGate at all. This is about a broad statement made in this article applying to a much wider topic, that of gaming in it's entirety. Thinking that misogyny might not be ingrained in gaming, thinking you're only showing the elephant's trunk, does not relate in any way to holding any particular stance about GamerGate in particular. The participants in this controversy do not reflect gaming culture or community as a whole.

TDA I agree, while I have problems with both ('long' being too strong, IMO) ingrained is way more suggestive, any neither are properly referenced. We ought to dial this back to just 'sexism' until desciptors about misogyny are referenced in a balanced way, they never have been. Ranze (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It is completely okay to do non-controversial corrections as an involved person. I can't add new stuff while its protected but fixing a wikilink is not an issue for example. As for references I have provided a link to a prior discussion that gives at least 6 that talk about sexism and misogyny in the past of the VG industry, and this was part of the previous discussion that Tarc has pointed out that we've gone over and over again and a consensus was reached on the wording. You need to go back and re-read those discussions first. --MASEM (t) 01:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixing a typo would be a non-controversial correction. What you did was not a correction, it was nothing like 'fixing a wikilink' and it IS a controversial edit. The page is locked with YOUR (and Rus McLaughlin's) viewpoint, even though you haven't sourced it in a balanced way. Adding things is not the only way to generate controversy. You removed a reference, removing a reference is not controversial.

What you have done is enforced a biased view of the discussion of misogyny's role in gaming community/culture. Previously I removed the claim of long-standing (now allegedly inherent/ingrained) misogyny and you added it in again, rather than supply supporting references on the article (nor even on the talk, your claims about doing so are false) you just injected your PoV as summary.

The prior discussion's 6 links have discussed RECENT events in VG industry. You are portraying those reports inaccurately by injecting your PoV that they constitute a new 'ingrained' issue by putting forth that sole viewpoint and squelching the contrary viewpoint that gaming culture is not overall misogynist and that these are merely accessory events by portions of it (much like criminal violence and football players).

Tarc has not 'pointed out' anything real, he's clearly, like you, trying to restrict conversation here by calling us GGers and disruptors, even though this is not making claims about GG and in reality, generalizations about gaming culture are themselves disrupting and distracting from an article that is supposed to be about GamerGate and not about injecting isolated unbacked criticisms of gaming community/culture as a whole.

If misogyny is an ingrained issue, why is it not even mentioned on articles about gaming community here? The reason that jumps out at me is that pages like that lack dedicated PoV-pushers continually re-inserting unbacked claims as this one has.

I am not making any support of GamerGate here, and the only thing I am disrupting is evidence that Wikipedia is hosting a biased improperly sourced assertion (a claim that misogyny is ingrained in gaming community) because only a single-sided (single-referenced) viewpoint is being conveyed here.

If this is to be balanced and you want to rely on VentureBeat as a reliable source of references, then you are obligated to mention Joe Yang's headline alongside Rus McLaughlin's footnote. You are conveying undue importance to Rus' article because it suits your viewpoints even though there is no reason provided to give his article priority over Joe's.

You are wrong when you claim consensus was achieved over what wording is ideal. Consensus was not achieved, the argument merely got buried. Past consensi also do not remove the requirement of adequate referencing. If 10 page editors reach a consensus that 'Obama is a martian' it doesn't mean someone can't come along later and demand proper referencing for it. The need for proper sourcing outweighs tyranny of majority (or more accurately, tyranny of the daily-editors over the weekly).

I have reread all those discussions, I was part of them and saw how they concluded, and nothing of required substance was added prior to their archival. If you think anything was, summarize and reiterate how MULTIPLE sources allege this to be ingrained, because the two VentureBeats cancel each other out. Find a 2nd supporting the viewpoint you keep adding in and I'll then shoulder a burden of searching out further contradictors to provide a balance viewpoint. Ranze (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The rest of us have come to consensus, so asking us to rehash a point you disagree with is disruptive. (Also, the edit of removing your change was done before the article was locked, and because it introduced an unreliable source into an article that needs higher scrutiny of sources, so that was not done as an admin action). --MASEM (t) 02:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

And again to point out: the Yang VB article is not a reliable source for the claims as it is specifically labelled as an unreviewed opinion piece, while the other VB article is not and presented as a editor-reviewed work. Huge different there. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You are painting a false picture of those discussions, I was not the only detractor to your arguments then, nor am I now, nor would opposition being singular matter, consensus is not a vote, it is more than majority, and I am not convinced you have even that. I am not understanding your argument for one VB article being reliable and the other being unreliable. Let's compare:

1. Rus McLaughlin (February 15, 2011). "Sexism and misogyny are gaming's status quo". VentureBeat. Retrieved September 28, 2014.
2. Joe Yang (11 December 2012). "Why gaming culture is not misogynistic". VentureBeat. Retrieved 10 October 2014.

You claim 1 from 2011 is "editor-reviewed work" while 2 from 2012 is "unreviewed opinion piece". These articles are not merely on the same website, they are both part of the same ongoing series called "GamesBeat". Let's look at the actual phrases:

1. This post has been edited by the GamesBeat staff. Opinions by GamesBeat community writers do not necessarily reflect those of the staff.
2. This post has not been edited by the GamesBeat staff. Opinions by GamesBeat community writers do not necessarily reflect those of the staff.

Now keep in mind that BOTH of the GamesBeat articles on VentureBeat contain this disclaimer:

• These are unvetted stories from the GamesBeat community. The staff picks the best ones and edits them for the front page.

So while the 2011 was 'edited', it is still 'unvetted' and does not reflect staff opinions. All this could mean is that staff had to fix a typo in the 2011 article but didn't have to make any corrections to the 2012 one. That an edit was made does not in any way give the 2011 article more reliability than the 2012 one. 'Staff pick the best ones' means that BOTH were reviewed by staff.

I request you admit that your summary here was wrong, and that you are misleading talk page readers about these sources. BOTH pieces are presented as editor-reviewed works AND 'opinions by community writers' (this phrase is the single time 'opinion' appears on either article). They are of EQUAL status and you are misinterpreting and/or misrepresenting the relevance of an edit being made to one. Ranze (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Even considering that, Yang's article does not counter the statement we make. Key quote "gaming culture is not inherently misogynistic. Its institutions, its structures, hierarchy, its payscales, and its distribution of power may be misogynistic, yes, but gamers themselves are not misogynistic. Their beliefs and rituals are not inherently misogynigistic." We are not saying that the gaming culture, by its nature, misogynist, only that there does exist misogyny within it for some time, and the Yang article agrees on this point. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That is , as long as other editors agreed that the first piece to source "ingrained" is fine, then this source can be used as a backup to that claim as well; if not, we've demonstrated in the past archives how the term still applies since it goes back pre-2000 (it is also fairly obvious to any subject matter expert in the field). --MASEM (t) 03:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: Who is the 'we' making the statement? That's whoever added it, and I suppose whoever adds it back when it is removed or changed. You are wrong, Yang's article definitely DOES counter the statement. The source for 'ingrained' is McLaughlin saying misogyny is ingrained 'in video game DNA'. If we take 'game DNA' to mean 'culture' then Yang saying misogyny is not inherent in gaming culture definitely contradicts the interpretation that McLaughlin took.

I think the issue of disagreement here is the amount of weight we see in the adjective 'ingrained'. You summarize this as meaning 'exists within' but its usage has a stronger impact than that. Some definitions use the word 'fixed' for example, with 'ingrain' meaning 'deeply connected'.

For example look at some definitions from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ingrained

• complete/utter
• deep-rooted
• deeply impressed or instilled
• firmly-fixed
• inveterate (meaning hardened/constant/habitual or set/fixed/rooted)
• usage: "you don't change corruption that deep and that ingrained in a culture from the outside."

Ingrained means inherent, basically. A clear thing here may be that Yang is distinguishing between gaming culture and gaming INDUSTRY. Since the core phrase you rely on is a metaphor (game DNA) I think you should also be wary of interpreting that to mean a comment on CULTURE when it could simply be a comment on PRODUCT.

This source is a contradiction, not a back-up. I do not remember you competently arguing that the term goes back pre-2000 as a comment on culture. Whenever you wish to make request to previous discussions I request you link to the archive. In this case I would also like it if you could directly link to your pre-2000 source and also quote an excerpt and interpret it. I responded to older articles you brought up before and found them completely off-topic red herrings. Ranze (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No, "Ingrained" is not a synonym for "inherent" (which I completely agree on your issue if they were). Inherent means the issue is unavoidable, it comes with the field; ingrained means it can be fixed. Yang's article does not counter this: the sexism/misogyny can be fixed but it is still a deep problem in the field. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Vox article - "Angry misogyny is now the primary face of GamerGate"

Well, if the consensus of the reliable sources wasn't clear enough before... Angry misogyny is now the primary face of GamerGate, from Vox.

Late last week, after she posted links to a meme making fun of the #GamerGate movement on Twitter, game designer Brianna Wu had her personal information shared among supporters of the movement. Coupled with the endless stream of harassing tweets she had received in the wake of the memes and several that threatened specific acts of violence, it was enough to drive Wu from her home.

Unfortunately, this has become par for the course for the loose-knit #GamerGate movement. Ostensibly, it's a community of gamers who are concerned about ethically problematic relationships between independent game developers and the journalists who write about them. But in practice, the movement has mostly been about deplorable harassment and intimidation of critics — usually women — who dare to disagree with them. It has becoming a misogynistic mob masquerading as a social movement.

There are plenty of well-meaning, intelligent, thoughtful people within the #GamerGate movement, people who might not understand how journalism works 100 percent of the time, but also certainly don't bear ill will toward women. But the way #GamerGate keeps devolving into an incoherent, misogynistic rabble means those voices get choked out. As such, the movement is impossible to take seriously anymore.

Goes on to discuss the issues with it being an unidentifiable movement that becomes identified by its worst adherents, because it lacks any identifiable leadership or any means of steering it in productive directions.

Also a key quote: Instead, (GamerGate) began as an angry attack on Zoe Quinn, for the offenses of being young, female, outspoken, and sexual. This is another source flatly rejecting the claim that there was any wrongdoing by Quinn. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't actually add anything to the question of weight seeing as we already use Vox and it is not as distant from the controversy as other outlets that offer a less inflammatory take.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is between this and a few other pieces that have come out in light of the harassment against Wu as that there is an opinion that GG is a "hate mob" (note: a shared opinion, not a fact). But I'd like to see more that aren't as tight in the situation as sites like Vox are before adding that. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's a better one from today from Business Insider - Video Gamers Are Having A Bizarre Debate Over Whether Sending Death Threats To Women Is A Serious Issue Or Not. Basically paints the death threats and angry rhetoric as the most visible part of #GamerGate to non-video game enthusiasts, or even as the only part that matters, and trivializes any journalism ethics concerns as the "video games journalism" field is a "niche" field that publishes "some pretty feeble stories posing as "news."". --PresN 04:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least someone recognises how laughable the industry's press is. Willhesucceed (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, no, it's not recognized as a hate mob if BBC Radio, Forbes, Slate, Techcrunch, Reason, Al Jazeera, etc. don't recognise it as such.

When Jezebel's on your side, you know you're in the wrong. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"When a woman-focused media outlet agrees with you (and with a majority of reliable sources) about what is widely regarded as a misogynistic harassment campaign know you're in the wrong!" This says a lot more about you than it does about anyone else, I hope you're aware of that. Have you forgotten that one of the biggest gamergate supporters writes for Breitbart.com?

The media is waffling less and less in their descriptions of gamergate, probably because it's two months later and there is still no evidence that it's anything other than an angry mob. Our article needs to start reflecting that fact. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly what are you proposing? Are you saying that the article should mention that and extreme feminist outlet claims gamergate is a hatemob? If you are saying that the article should include the fact that feminists groups and SJW are making wild unsubstantiated hate filled claims, then yes... maybe that should be included as a sister article?`Because that ios what it is -- it is just feminists making wild claims they have no proof of. If you are referring to the actual incident that spiked the new hatred coming from these outlets, then it isn't reliable. There has been no proof that the troll was actually part of Gamergate or even that the incident actually happened.--Thronedrei (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that some have called it a "hate mob" (including these articles, as well as Quinn and Alexander) is unavoidable. We just have to present it as an opinion, not fact. (And some of these other articles have pointed out that if proGG wants to be taken seriously by mainstream sources, they would have come out against the harassment and distanced themselves from it long ago, but it hasn't happened, leading many journalists to believe that the claims made by proGGers aren't legit; even if the Wu harassment wasn't GG connected , the lack of condemnation to it is why many sources are becoming more dismissive of the proGG side) --MASEM (t) 15:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The point is, "Angry misogyny is now the primary face of GamerGate" is the mainstream point-of-view of this topic much as "Obama was really born in Hawaii" is the primary angle of Birthergate. There are secondary, bordering on fringe, points-of-view within each topic, but they are not given equal weight or footing. Tarc (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no. This point is a significant view, but it is not clearly established as the mainstream view. It's too significant to ignore, but we can't adopt that view as the only one (all others being Fringe from that logic) as it's not yet clear that all current reliable sources are running on that idea. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, yes. As noted above, as media outlets far removed from game journalism pick up on the matter, this is what they are noting. You can't fight the tide forever, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You have to stay more neutral. Vox is not "far removed", and Business Insider is far from sourcing like Washington Post, LA Times, or the New Yorker. It needs to be a prevailing factor across more sources to make that the key thought. Until then, this is a significant but not the only view. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ingrained misogynist and sexism in gaming community

So hating women and sexism is what makes a gamer community? According to whom and on what factual data? Accusing millions of people of being sexist and misogynist just because they wear the tag "gamer" is a serious accusation. Is it a requirement to be a misogynist or are you a sexist if you are a gamer? Is it some small minority with those beliefs? Can you paint the whole gaming culture as sexist and misogyny based on an editorial piece? What is the consensus of the editors here on this? If its a minor belief within the gaming community, shouldn't this reflect the fact? If it is a major held belief, then leave it at that, but we would need some proof of that. 76.27.230.7 (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It reflects the sustained patterns of harassment that women within the video gaming culture, from developers to players, have experienced over the years. Tarc (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc: that sounds like original research to me. Male players and designers have also sustained patterns of harassment and generalizations about their attributes. We could go so far to say that sexism is a problem in gaming as it is in ANY subculture, but to claim that sexism is worse, or that the particularly distasteful flavor of it that is genuine misogyny happens more in gaming than elsewhere (which is what 'ingrained' or 'long-standing' or even mentioning it at all conveys) is a strong claim which demands strong referencing, which hasn't been provided. It's also unclear just how much sexist harassment exists, since some harassment painted as sexist is actually a criticism of other attributes of a woman (like what charities they claim to donate to, or the actual quality of their game) which are being misleadingly reframed. Ranze (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As with most of your input into this area, you are woefully incorrect. We go by what the reliable sources say, which note the deep-seated sexism and harassment that males in the community subject females to, and have been doing for quite awhile. Males who have been harassed have not been singled out because of their gender, when is where your boiler-plate Men's Rights Movement claptrap of an argument usually falls apart. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Please quote your reliable sources as well as provide links and proof that they are actually reliable. That said, I have never seen any proof that 'gamers' that happen to be female have been harassed due to their gender more then men have. Rape threats are not sexist, they are threats. Please learn what sexism is. Also, there no proof that the peopel making the threats are gamers themselves.--Thronedrei (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc: what does did you cut n paste this from the Men's Rights Movement? from your summary refer to? Believing that emotion-conveying words (hatred, fear, etc.) are overused in cases where a lack of evidence for emotion exists does not make one part of an interest group.

Males and females have both been victims of harassment. To paint men as the harassers of those females who allege they were harassed is itself sexist, as females have also been critical of other females. This is more of a gamers criticizing gamers issue, sometimes a criticized gamer is female, that doesn't necessarily make the criticism sexist. Sometimes it is, yeah, but it's fine to reserve the right to assess that on a case by case basis. Our views may not match on which sources ought to be called reliable. Males have actually been singled out for their gender among gamers too, where do you think terms like 'neckbeard' originate? Is that meant to apply equally to women? The whole stereotype of gamers being more sexist than others or even misogynist are themselves sexist stereotypes male gamers are subjected to more than female ones. Ranze (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, Men's Rights claptrap. Men attacking other men are not doing so for a gender-based reason, it simply does not exist; when women are targeted for being women, that is a whole different situation, esp. when the threats revolve around sex-oriented violence, as Quinn and Sarkeesian and others were subjected to, and continue to be subjected to at present. Do not ping me again, as I am less than interested in your rather callous opinion on this tangent. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, more unsubstantiated claims. Where is your proof that men targeting women is sexist? Where is your proof that men targeting men isn't? Also, sex-oriented violence? If you mean sexual-oriented violence, then that is not sexism.--Thronedrei (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Tarc you are welcome to ping me as often as you like, I will try to remember to avoid doing so in the future, though I hope you'll forgive me if I forget in a couple months or something. I would appreciate it if you could respond solely to the content of our discussion and not start your rebuttals with distracting ad-hominem accusations. I will point out that it is possible for someone to be discriminatory against a group one is a member of. Men can attack men over women for sexist reasons, women can attack women over men for sexist reasons. I do not believe the gender of Quinn and Sarkeesian are the primary reasons either are attacked, and I don't think that has been proven in any reliable way. There are gender-neutral reasons provided for the criticism of both. To say that attacks on them revolve around sex is like saying that attacks on Obama revolve around race. Although certainly bigotry can rear its head in both cases and contribute to unjust criticism, to use that to create a broad brush to condemn most criticism as being rooted in this is unfounded. I also don't think Quinn or Sarkeesian threats 'revolve' around sex-oriented violence. Although it is inevitable that somebody (probably a troll rather than someone with genuine intention) will throw a 'u gonna get raeped' in the direction of any public figure, no conclusive evidence has been presented that this content forms a significant portion of (much less majority of) criticism in their direction. Ranze (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing: It doesn't have to be "proven." We don't operate on your standard of "objective proof," we operate on a standard of what reliable sources say. And reliable sources say that misogyny and sexism is endemic in video gaming. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ranze:, Tarc is known for posting inflammatory remarks and turning your words into strawmen as above. It's supposedly against the rules, but there's no admin around here willing to enforce the rules; so your better chance is ignoring anything s/he writes that is not directly related to making changes to the article content. As Tarc has yet to write anything with respect to article content, that means ignoring almost anything s/he writes at this talk page. 212.0.102.74 (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if someone is being rude or engaging in fallacy I still prefer to engage in conversation in hopes of things improving. I don't like the tactic of ignoring. Even if they don't change, replies can still benefit readers who might otherwise believe straw-men introduced unless they are destrawed. I would like to see more active admin involvement aimed at improving the quality of discussion and resolving disagreements. WPns like Masem have been polite and not engaged in the level of name-calling I've seen from others but even there we often seem to reach impasses of subtle yet import differences in how we interpret both conversations and words used in references that great vast gaps in what conclusions we reach as we converse. Especially here I maintain an imagining of mutual good faith that could benefit from co-operative admins, as opposed to condemnatory admins which might be more appropriate with name-callers like Tarc. Ranze (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

We do not make the statement that the sexism and misogyny is ingrained in the community, but the culture (encompassing all parts of video game industry including devs and journalists and publishers), a very key difference in wording. I would agree that we actually would not be able to say that the community has these ingrained issues as that's very difficult to source, but for the culture, it is very well sourced and acknowledged as a problem. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the key phrase is that you (take it singular or plural) are making this statement, rather than a balanced assessment of references commenting on the issue. Yang clearly contradicts and luckily for you the page was locked preventing your blatant removal of contradicting evidence to advance your PoV. The word 'acknowledged' is biased, and your false claim is not well-sourced at all, you picked a single journal entry and ignored contrasting viewpoints, cherry-picking only the reference that supports you. Ranze (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Revealing that you are in the organization means nothing. The possibility of being neutral while being involved in the issues is a misleading argument. Again, it means nothing. Possibility means nothing. A chance of it's validity doesn't implicitly give it validity. Repeating the point I have made in my previous statement, she is in the Kotaku as a writer when Gamergate happened. Kotaku is the website involved in the controversy, her words on the subject is therefore discredited. I wasn't talking about Gamasutra. Note my conversation above when I made this point. Exefisher (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Kotaku was not involved; the initial accusations were not made at Kotaku but at the writer. Big difference. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: Isn't the idea more that Gawker Media as a whole is involved? Ranze (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no. You can't seriously be claiming that anyone who has ever written for Gawker Media is now "involved" because they write or wrote for a large media conglomerate. That's patently absurd. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think THIS hits the nail on the head Retartist (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Jezebel source (likely not usable but tracking for that)

Jezebel's take. Two problems here is 1) they're part of the same network as Kotaku so I'm sure there will be complaints on bias, and 2) they are a female-oriented website (not necessarily feminist but the implication that they bias on that side is there). As such, I can't see easy use save for the overall example of this author, who was doing a open survey study of the impact of sexism on video games who had the study effectively flooded with useless responses originating from some of the GGer side. (But again, do we need this? Only if a thirdparty comments more on this article) --MASEM (t) 18:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

They're also a group blog. So they're unusuable. Tutelary (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Not true: it's run very much like Kotaku as there is established editorial control, so that doesn't eliminate them as a source. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

They're a blog. If they're somehow being used as a RS, the articles which do such should be investigated. Tutelary (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the word "blog" isn't a magic word that prevents something from being used as an RS. Self-published blogs are not RS because they don't have external editorial control. Jezebel is not a self-published blog, it's a media platform akin to BuzzFeed, Kotaku, Engadget, etc. It has, in fact, a higher level of editorial control than the Forbes contributor articles by Erik Kain. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

So what's stopping me from starting my own 'blog' and calling it a 'media platform' to secretly influence articles on Wikipedia? Of course, shouting 'blog' doesn't make it unusable as a source, but The policy verifiability seems to make it so that it's largely unusable. Oh, and where's said proof of editorial control, North? I've yet to find a single instance of Jezebel having any. Tutelary (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, here's a link to their editorial staff that took me all of 5 seconds to find on the page. It's an established publication focusing on women's issues.

Nothing is stopping you from launching a publication that could be accepted as a reliable source at some point. You just need a staff, fact-checking and editorial policies, some time to develop a reputation... being part of a larger publishing organization never hurts, etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so merely having a makeshift editorial staff is enough to render a blog completely usable, right? Tutelary (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Moving the goalposts. You asked for proof of editorial control, I provided it. 2. The word "makeshift" needs a [citation needed] tag, because it's your unsourced and unsupported opinion. Not sure what it's supposed to mean in this context anyway. It has an editorial staff, same as Kotaku, Engadget, The Verge, Gizmodo, etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Not really, but it's interesting given your responses to certain sources but not others. Given you've been one of the main supporters of the present article, it's good to get your thoughts on what makes a certain source reliable but not others. So, editorial control = ultimately BLP compliant, plus a reliable source, even if it is a blog. - North. Got'cha. Will be researching sources based on this material. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Remember that a key RS factor is a history of editorial control and fact checking. Jezabel's been around long enough to make that judgement call. Your hypothetical new blog with a new editoral staff will not (unless, for example, your editor in chief might have a previous well-established reputation. This was the case of Kotaku relatively recently when they brought Stephan Tolito on board who had a recognizable history of good editorial control). --MASEM (t) 19:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

We evaluate sources on a source-by-source basis; as Masem said, a new source can become considered an RS very quickly if it is run by a larger organization with a reputation and staffed by experienced journalists (such as The Verge or Polygon) and there are very old sources that have no chance of ever becoming an RS because of their structure and nature (DailyKos, RedState, etc.). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't there a Wikipedia Policy for what counts a editorial control? Can't we use that? --86.140.193.247 (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

In this case Allaway is not a writer for Jezebel and this is obviously an opinion piece, which means our criteria should be based on her expertise. The Escapist describes her as a "student researcher" and she appears to be an undergraduate. While I applaud the young Miss Allaway on finding a way to hitch her wagons to this controversy to promote her school project, there is no reason why we should indulge this, even if the folks who own Kotaku decided to let her appropriate their megaphone to vent her rage at the people accusing their journalist of professional impropriety because some of them also spammed her open survey with junk responses.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that I don't think this is usable at this point (it's not unusable just because its on Jezebel, as being argued above, but there are other reasons it is unusable we should consider). But if a third-party points to this as an example of the effects of GG, then this can back up that source. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, this subject heading is inappropriate. What's the point in starting a conversation about a source you think isn't usable in this article? Why this source in particular, when there are many published every day? As with your repeated comments about hypothetical future articles by Leigh Alexander being "dependant sources," when you do this it looks a lot like a preemptive strike, trying to shape the discussion on the usability of a source before anyone has even tried to use it at all. What's the harm in letting someone who actually wants to use the source down the line make an argument for it and respond to it then? -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm tracking sources that are out there that would otherwise fit RS standards that may be useful to the article. Just that on this one, my initial take is there's not much yet we can do with it. But if someone reads that and goes "hey we could include..." and start discussion for including, that's fine. This is exactly what talk pages are for. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This talkpage is full of unproductive arguing as it is: I see no benefit to starting conversations about how awful you think a particular source is when nobody has even found a use for it in the article. It's purely hypothetical at this point: we can't evaluate if a source is being used appropriately when nobody is trying to use it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages full of arguments is tons better than edit warring, as long as it is always towards improvement (percieved or otherwise) of the article. As long as it's not beating a dead horse, it's valid for here. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest? Were there any?

With a couple of snips for brevity, the opening now reads:

Gamergate ... concerns ... journalistic ethics in the online gaming press, particularly conflicts of interest between video game journalists and developers.

I've snipped out the bits I don't see a problem with, in order to focus on what remains.

Do we have any actual evidence from reliable sources of de facto conflicts of interest? Obviously the Zoe Quinn allegations won't wash there. Anything else mentioned under the Gamergate tag? I do notice that we state that the initial assertions of conflict of interest were proven unfounded.

I'd suggest changing this to:

Gamergate ... concerns ... journalistic ethics in the online gaming press, with a primary focus on alleged conflicts of interest between video game journalists and independent developers.

This drills down a bit to the original unfounded allegations which are still, alas, circulating.

We don't want the opening section to promise more than the article body can deliver. --TS 23:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we have journalists themselves recognizing that they have conflicts of interest with AAA publishers (as well as indie devs) - eg [14], [15] (from 2012), [16], and I could get more. It is not limited to the indie devs here, and is one of those problems they do recognize. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Whoa! Collosal misuse of sources there. Artw (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

To date GamerGate has uncovered nothing that would reasonably be described as a conflict of interest, corruption or an infraction of journalistic ethics. Nor do they actually show any interest in any of those things, despite claims to the contrary. Artw (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I've heard pro-GGers scream about the GameJournoPro email list/group. Would it be considered a breach of journalistic ethics for said journalists to talk amongst themselves about whether or not to cover a story, or would the fact that the story would cause unneeded harm actually support journalistic ethics? --86.140.193.247 (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Every profession has back-channels for talking amongst themselves, socializing, sharing ideas, discussing issues, etc. While there could theoretically be concerns if literally every journalist on the list agreed about everything... the leaked e-mails actually revealed that there was widespread disagreement among list members about the issue, that the idea of putting out a group support letter was generally rejected and that nothing remotely resembling "collusion" occurred. What ended up being leaked were long e-mail threads of journalists arguing with each other. Which is why the "story" was a fat nothingburger that never went beyond Breitbart. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, JournoList wasn't a thing at all. Willhesucceed (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If this had been covered by anything remotely resembling the reliable sources that covered JournoList, your comparison might have merit.

JournoList was explicitly, if not admittedly, ideological; limited to liberal and liberal-leaning journalists only; and a number of the leaked e-mails showed behavior that was, charitably, open to interpretations that it represented bias. GameJournoPros had none of the above features. The e-mails were leaked... and everyone yawned because they showed nothing more than journalists arguing with each other. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A number of sources have mentioned the Patreon problems, especially in Asia, and every time I bring them up editors waffle and hum and haw. Willhesucceed (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the allegation that was considered unfounded was specifically the claim of Quinn having sex for a positive review of her game. There is no indication that actually happened and Grayson did not write any such review. We have nothing addressing a broader claim of a conflict of interest on Grayson's part based on his relationship with Quinn. As to conflicts of interest that have been noted in reliable sources, you can check in the legitimacy of concerns section where some are noted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no such broader claim, because for a conflict of interest to exist you have to have two conflicting interests. Absent a review by Grayson, there's no interest to conflict. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, no there was an article written about her and, per Kotaku's disclosure, it was right before the relationship started. Reliable sources have not really touched that angle of the story, though, hence why we should make it very clear what allegation we are saying was proven unfounded.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The story wasn't about her, it mentioned her. It was before the relationship started, by anyone's timeline. Any allegation about that article is, at best, totally-unprovable speculative gossip seeking literally anything with which to attack its target. Which is likely why no source has touched it or is likely to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

So could we switch to saying alleged? I'm not seeing any Gamergate-derived conflicts. Doritogate was ages ago and, besides, the Gamergate people really haven't gone after the AAA developers the way they did Zoe Quinn. --TS 02:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I'd have to chew through a few sources, but first - while alleged, some journalists and devs specifically in response to the GG side have stated they have connections with others, and have discussed this is norm for the industry - as to a point admitting part of the proGG complaints (the other aspect, that journalists have specifically favored these people, are unfounded to the best I know). As such, if we want "alleged" we'd have to reword the statement. Second, it has been established that these past issues with the journalistic press has been part of the complains of GG (though far from the current ones), that before GG went down, there was already distrust of the system. Add that there are people on both sides that want to open a discussion of game ethics. (Mind you, there's a lot you can read into why the GG side has not gone after AAA developers which has been discussed above, but would be OR for this article). --MASEM (t) 02:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've seen the gaming media pointing out possible problems, and I've seen the gamergate email campaigns against media outlets whose views are too progressive for their liking, but I've seen very little in the way of sourced, specific criticism about any genuine conflicts of interest coming out of gamergate (as opposed to out of the gaming media). They exit, but with nothing to connect them to gamergate, presenting these sources as examples of the 'corruption' that gamergate claims to be attacking would be original research, because the fact is these are not the issues that the movement is focusing on. In fact we've had several occasions now of people saying 'hey, why hasn't gamergate mentioned this very real, concrete and obvious example of conflicts of interest in games journalism instead of, you know, setting off another harassment campaign of yet another relatively minor indie dev?' The most recent (though I don't think it's made any RS yet) being the question of why Escapist's vehemently pro-GG editor who published their recent article about 'what Game Devs think' about gamergate (that is, the *real* game devs, the male ones, to contrast with their previous article about what the *female* game deves think) didn't disclose his financial interest in one of the devs selected to represent 'game devs.' Sauce for geese isn't sauce for ganders, I suppose. I think at this point it's past time to stop taking gamergate's word for the 'corruption' angle in absence of any source other than gaters saying 'gamergate is about corruption.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There were a whole pile of problems with that Escapist piece - it wasn't their finest moment. :) Other than the false allegations about Quinn and Grayson, I'm aware of two claims about COI emerging from GamerGate. One was the Patreon issue, with at least two journalists supporting a developer through Patreon. That, however, is questionable in regards to COI, as I don't think a solid case has been made as to why that should be regarded as a COI. The second was with a journalist who was close to a developer, and I believe it was claimed that they shared a house at some point. That one was more substantial, in that the relationship was of close friends, and did lead to some clarification of the ethics policy from one of the gaming sites. Beyond that, the various allegations of COI from the GG-side of things have been unproven, as far as I'm aware. - Bilby (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Even though we're reaching Forum type discussion, not having monetarial links to your subject is almost the number one rule of proper journalism, why do you think otherwise. In more serious aspects of journalism these people would be laughed at for not acknowledging it. And as mentioned before, the GameJournosPro list, someone saying they shouldn't "cover" the story is collusion, blacklisting and unethical everywhere you look. That journalist you say shared a house, it's a Kotaku journalist (not giving names for BLP), but she did in fact re-edit her articles to include mentions that she was close to the people being covered. Saying there's no COI anywhere is just ridiculous and I hope you don't really think that Loganmac (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The Kokatu journalist is the one issue that has been shown to have been a COI through GamerGate, although it is unclear as to how significant it was - an issue, but not on the same level as some of the COI problems we've seen in the past. But that might be enough to say we don't need to add "alleged" to the article. The GameJournosPro list ended up being largely overblown, but at any rate isn't a COI concern. - Bilby (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You obviously haven't actually read the leaked e-mails from the list, because there's nothing about them that can remotely be described as "collusion." Nobody agreed on anything except that harassment is a bad thing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is not a forum but I'll source this http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2014/09/19/inside-the-secret-world-of-games-journalism/ "they discuss what to write about, what to include, and more importantly, what to omit.", one screencaps says and I quote "I would LOVE to use my platform to reproach this kind of behavior... but that would go against [blp just in case]'s valid and understandable desire not to have this personal matter publicized by the media... Maybe we should just stick to Twitter to boost the signal on this one, rather than our 'front pages." "Maybe we should get a public letter of support going around decrying these kinds of personal attacks, signed by as many sympathetic journalists/developers as we can," "Maybe we should just use this as an excuse to give more attention to her work... I know I've been meaning to review Depression Quest since its Steam release." Do you think this is ethical in any way or form or you're just defending you view point for the sake of not agreeing with anything about GG, also lol, just to let you know, I've had acess to more emails than there are publicly available, personally I think this discussion should be locked as it's not even relevant to the article Loganmac (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's the key word: Discuss. You have provided a number of cherry-picked quotes from the many people expressing their opinions about the subject. You have conveniently omitted any number of quotes from people who were uncomfortable with the idea of "signal boosting" and you have conveniently omitted the fact that the vast majority of people commenting on the "public letter of support" idea said it was inappropriate and the person who offered the idea later withdrew it and said he recognized the ethical issues with what he was proposing.

The word "collusion" doesn't mean "people expressing opinions," it means some sort of under-the-table agreement to do or not do something. None of the e-mails show any sort of general agreement by any group of people to follow a particular party line on this matter — thus, there is no "collusion." That's why reliable sources completely ignored it — because it's a nothingburger.

All you're left with is a bunch of journalists talking to (and arguing with) each other about what they're writing, how they're covering it, their thoughts about the issue, etc. In other words, a standard professional backchannel as has existed in every profession forever. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Just before we go any further along this path, whether or not the GameJournosPro link was ethical is interesting, but not related to a conflict of interest. It might have been unethical, but it isn't a COI allegation, so won't help the current discussion as to whether or not the claims of conflicts of interest were alleged or real. - Bilby (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is one example not currently covered in the article: [17].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe that has been discussed before but has shown no obvious connection to GG. --MASEM (t) 05:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the article, please.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a different version of what has been put before, but key is the lack of any serious connection to GG - beyond happening at the same time the situation with GG blew up. There is no evidence that the report of the hack was driven by backlash from GG from other sources that also reported on this. --MASEM (t) 06:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The Reddit thread was being pushed on Twitter by GamerGate before anyone reported on it. Kotaku not giving them credit is, well, unsurprising. Suffice to say, it was definitely tied in with GamerGate and we have a reliable source that verifies as much.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, the story was discussed before, and we've determined the ties to GG are tenuous at best - it happened at the same time when ethical reporting was being questioned by GG and the fact there's no direct mention of GG or the issues of GG by involved parties is a strong hint that it's not tied to it. Even this CinemaBlend piece doesn't affirm a connection, just noting this went on as GG was in full gear. --MASEM (t) 06:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Funny how an account just popped up on Reddit all of a sudden in the middle of all this to make a bunch of claims about Australian gaming media being too close to the Australian gaming industry and yet you are arguing that, even though a source explicitly relates this to GamerGate, we should not include it because you feel this has nothing to do with GamerGate despite it being pushed a lot on Twitter by a bunch of major names in GamerGate prior to the reporting. Cool, and apparently Tara is going to use such exclusions as a reason to slant this article even more against GamerGate. I am thinking you are either just more moderately anti-GamerGate than some of the others here or are basically the Alan Colmes of GamerGate sympathizers.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It's looking like the upshot of this conversation is that no, there are no reliable sources indicating any legitimate conflicts of interest or other ethical problems that have been targeted, promoted or investigated as part of gamergate: all we have are sources on ethical problems, and sources that say that gamergate says its about ethics, but nothing that connects a to b. In light of that I support Tony Sidaway's initial proposal, but I think further work will be needed on the lede in light of the fact that two months down the line we still have few if any reliable sources taking the gaters' narrative seriously. We have extensive sources for the movement's misogynistic harassment and essentially nothing for its 'ethics concerns;' it's time the lede acknowledged that. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

So, in light of the very clear opposition to the already blatantly anti-GamerGate slant of this article, you are proposing that we slant it even further on the basis of you thinking that the various changes in policy regarding conflicts of interest do no warrant it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

you've pretty comprehensively failed to make a case that GamerGate has ever turned up anything worthwhile. What you're doing now is basically just special pleading. Artw (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"This article is so biased!!!" is not a coherent argument. We're supposed to be reflecting the sources here, not bending over backwards to accommodate poorly-sourced fringe viewpoints, no matter how many individual accounts are advocating that we do so. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

And you continue to downplay that while we cannot introduce more proGG arguments due to lack of any, we don't flood the space with antiGG ones just because there's counterpoint. There's moderation in how much of the antiGG side we should present while saying neutral in the matter. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE support you on this - it's basically just a personal theory of yours. Artw (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that "we cannot introduce more proGG arguments due to lack of any" is exactly the problem here. "Both sides have points" and "the truth is somewhere in the middle" are not always 'neutral' positions. See Gray fallacy. So long as we're abiding by WP:WEIGHT we're fine - and I'd argue that we're not, but only in that we're currently giving too much credence to the gaters' position. We have sources for the fact that gaters say their movement is about corruption, but actions speak louder and the reliable sources on what the movement is actually doing tell a very different story. Our lede currently has a rather inappropriate pro-gamergate bias by stating uncritically that gamergate is about things like corruption, ethics and conflicts of interest when the only such claims that the movement has even raised have proved to be complete bunk. We are not expected to treat all 'sides' of an issue seriously when our reliable sources are not doing so, and the preponderance of reliable sources do not take the 'it's about corruption' angle seriously. We can say that they claim it's about corruption, but at this point we're burying our heads in the sand by saying that it actually is, in Wikipedia's voice. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree that we might be giving some weight to the proGG side, but at the same time, we are overloading this with very negative opinions about the proGG from antiGG sources that basically are there to convince the reader that proGG is bad, and that is not our function. Are they seen in a bad light? Sure, and there's no way to avoid that. But as pointed out before, we don't need to use sources to take pot shots at them every opportunity one arises, which is what the present Responses section is basically doing. Granted, with more articles coming out that now attribute stronger language towards proGG (eg "hate mob" in some recent ones), it is going to look worse for the proGG side but we can still moderate how much we include that points a finger at them. (We don't do this for "evil" people or groups in history, there's certainly no reason to do this here)

And "We are not expected to treat all 'sides' of an issue seriously when our reliable sources are not doing so" is absolutely the wrong attitude to take. First, some but not all are dismissing the proGG side, but there's still plenty of legit serious discussion about their complaints, and as such we as a neutral entity have to try that seriously in as much as we can to source it. You cannot reject this approach, this is required under NPOV, recongizing that the broad claims of what proGG want are far outside of FRINGE. We have to take what is being reported about what they want as serious as we take the claims the antiGG is making to effective balance this article in as much as it can be. That's one reason why we get floods of external editors and SPAs because there are people editing this that would rather not even give the proGG side the time of day. Until every source says "The GGers are spouting nonsense", we have to treat that side as a serious party in the debate. --MASEM (t) 23:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Reddit does not get a vote on whether we follow Wikipedia policy. Artw (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Reddit or the like as a source. I'm talking about established RSes that are at least still giving serious weight to the issues of proGG. I fully recognize that the trend right now is that if a segment of proGG continue the "strategy" they have been doing (re: Wu) that they are going to find fewer and fewer sources that will take them seriously, and at that point, there's little that this article could even do to give them a fair shake. But that day isn't here yet. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Artw was likely referring to the fact that you appear to be attempting to use the fact that this article is attracting lots of SPAs and POV pushers as evidence that it's biased against gamergate. I think that's a terrible argument, not the least because it essentially boils 'consensus' down to a majority rule: "if lots of people arrive on the project just to push a pov, that must mean the article is wrong!" Most of the SPAs won't be happy until the article is completely whitewashed and only portrays their movement the way they want it portrayed, so that's a terrible argument.

We are talking specifically about whether or not it is appropriate to state uncritically that gamergate is about conflicts of interest in absence of any evidence, and despite the sources we have which have pointed out that this isn't the case. I don't care that you think that an absence of 'pro-gg' sources means that we must limit well sourced information you consider 'anti-gg.' We need to know how you can justify the information in the current version of the lede when our mainstream sources are not only not supporting the idea that gamergate is concerned with corruption, but actively coming out against it. Repeating the same vague arguments you've been using for weeks about 'anti-gg bias' and 'too many quotes' and 'piling on' and so forth is not getting us anywhere. We have source after source that is focusing primarily on the misogynistic harassment that's the only tangible thing coming out of gamergate, and several that have mentioned the claims about 'conflicts of interest' and so forth only to state that they're simply hot air. At some point we're going to have to accept that this is not 'anti-gamergate bias.' It is pro-reality bias. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been involved in situations where there is a flood of SPAs making changes that are "stupid" changes (for example, following a Game Grumps run of Another World, too many editors were trying to change the charcter name to "Mike" to reflect a joke in that youtube). That type of stuff, I ignore and won't worry about. On the other hand, there are clear and valid concerns that this article is far too slanted as an antiGG piece and not considering the proGG side under a fair light (note: not necessary fair time, 50/50 split, but simply how the issues are presented.), and so the flood of SPAs that call out the unbiased aspects of this issue, irregardless of how much they may be fumbling around with proper policy applications, is a data point to not ignore, because they are correct - this in no way is a clinically neutral article. It makes WP take a side that has yet to be determined to be the "right" side - it's the more popular opinion in the press, definitely, but that doesn't make it right, and we should not be treating it as "right" just becuase there are a magnitude more voices speaking towards it. --MASEM (t) 22:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is the person involved in the controversy allowed to be a source in this?

The WSJ article was written by the same person involved in the controversy, this is bias. EDIT: Corrections I meant the Time magazine article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exefisher (talk • contribs) 09:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing from the Wall Street Journal used in the article. Could you be more specific as to the issue at hand?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Per your correction, it has been previously discussed that content by Leigh Alexander prior to Intel pulling ads from Gamasutra are still considered reliable sources because at the time she was not a "person involved in the controversy". You cannot retroactively discredit a source like this because the author has become part of what has since happened.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Corrections. She's in the organizations involved in the controversy. Since that's the case, using her article as a source will be counted as bias. I — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exefisher (talk • contribs) 11:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

What "organizations involved in the controversy"? Is this organization the "video game media"? It's clear you're trying to discredit her word here, and the word of anyone that has voiced opposition to Gamergate. It's not going to fly.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous for you to assume that I meant video game media, do not make a strawman. Kotaku is involved in the controversy, also video game media is GENERAL. Kotaku is one of them which is involved in it. Also it is quite clear that you are trying to discredit my words here and the word of anyone that is for Gamergate. It's not going to fly.Exefisher (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Exefisher, this has been pointed out again and again, and a handful of editors continue to insist that it's a usable source. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Willhesucceed (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus on an issue that can be argued doesn't mean anything other than argumentum ad populum. Exefisher (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Populum implies there's a majority, I think 'handful' is more appropriate, I don't think people insisting a NYT article by a Kotaku member is a valid source necessarily constitute a majority, so WHS is more like 'some people insist so... why u object?" or something. Ranze (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Or the way to actually explain it is, a majority of editors cite project policy regarding verifiability and sourcing. This is not a point of legitimate contention. Tarc (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The Time piece was written well before the Intel bit made her "involved", so it is a completely acceptable source. Now that she is, her writing would be a "dependent" source as involved, meaning we'd prefer independent sources for equivalent information, but not invalid as a source. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC) Again, she is involved in the organizations which is in the heart of the controversy. Therefore she was bias even before she herself was involved in it.Exefisher (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Never mind that Alexander writes for Gamasutra, Polygon, Kotaku, that she's written over and over again about how much she despises her audience, that her Twitter feed is full of even more of such bile, editors will continue to insist she's a good source on this. Imagine if we treated the Westboro Baptist Church's thoughts on homosexuality as reliable. This is basically the same thing. But it's okay because Time knows so much about video games that surely they wouldn't pick the wrong person to write the article! ;) Willhesucceed (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind: sources are judged case by case , and in reference to what they have done. Alexander has a history of good journalism before this, so if she writes an article that contains factual statements with no hint of bias or opinion, that's fine. If she writes something as her opinion, we have to judge how appropriate it is to include here. (Note that her "rant" piece on the death of gamers is not used to source anything about the event, outside of it being highlighted in the Intel situation, for example). --MASEM (t) 17:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The fact that she was involved in the controversy destroyed her credibility in the subject, using a piece of opinion as intel itself is a fallacious move and further judging is unnecessary. Explanations? An opinion which is a judgment of situations not a descriptions even if it is, it's bound to be bias. Exefisher (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it didn't. I mean, seriously, can you put together a comprehensible argument? If "being involved in a controversy" meant we could no longer use someone as a source, wouldn't we have to remove every single pro-GamerGate source because they're involved in the controversy too? Think for 10 seconds before you post such illogical word salad. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That isn't even what I said. Also, a strawman, it isn't just a "being involved in a controversy" argument, it's being involved therefore being bias about it. So no. It's a comprehensible argument if you simply just comprehend it. Also do remove any pro-Gamergate articles just base on an opinion because unless it describes facts, it likely won't have neutrality. Exefisher (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You sure do like being condescending don't you, Willhesucceed? (´･ω･`) Perhaps she would have a better view of the movement if it hadn't attacked her viciously and cost her website money because people were incensed over her actions instead of just like not going to her website anymore. No. You have to get advertising pulled instead of just not going to the website in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Do not make ridiculous accusations of attack unless you have evidences. No one other than trolls have attacked her, generalizations and false accusations is unfounded for Wikipedia. Moreover is your "perhaps she would have better view of the movement" admitting that she is bias?Exefisher (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

And who are you to make pronouncements of who attacked her or not? Are you presuming to know better than her who attacked her? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Never said that. Was referring to Ryulong's accusations of Willhesucceed attacking websites. I didn't make any pronouncement. Are you referring to the generalizations I made? 4chan is the main place where they actually attack Zoey Quinn other than that there nothing of note that, no source or evidence of anyone else that is just attacking her for the sake of it.If you have it. Show it. Exefisher (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between a dependent source (which she now is due to the Intel part) and an unreliable source, which there is no evidence that she is unreliable that has been brought forward. Bias != unreliability unless it has been a clear pattern of bias for a long time, which cannot be shown here. We do have to be careful but we don't avoid her. And as pointed out several times before, the articles we use from her were before Intel pulled their ads so those are even more in the clear for this. --MASEM (t) 04:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, a piece of opinion cannot hold any neutrality because it is bias and therefore unreliable. You said that the clear pattern of bias cannot be shown here but I already said the very fact of being involved in the controversy themselves has already discredit the argument altogether. The argument about it intel had already been explained. "using a piece of opinion as intel itself is a fallacious move and further judging is unnecessary. Explanations? An opinion which is a judgment of situations not a descriptions even if it is, it's bound to be bias." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exefisher (talk • contribs)

By default any opinion piece will have a bias, which doesn't make it unreliable. It is if that bias continues into non-opinion pieces that becomes a question of reliability (eg of the Fox News style). Being involved does not implicitly create a bias; they are dependent, but they can still report neutrally on the manner as long as, should it apply, they reveal their connection to it (as Gamasutra is now doing as they report on GG based issues). And again to stress: at the time that those articles were written, she was not involved - the Intel issue , or even the intense criticism on her Gamasutra piece - had not happened, so a source cannot retroactively become unreliable because of a sudden new involvement that arrives. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Opinions are bias. Since you have accepted it as a fact, there should be no further debates. The article cannot be used as a source for supporting the statement of allegations being unfounded, it can be said that she denied the allegations that was put forward not that it was unfounded. Revealing that you are in the organization means nothing. The possibility of being neutral while being involved in the issues is a misleading argument. Again, it means nothing. Possibility means nothing. A chance of it's validity doesn't implicitly give it validity. Repeating the point I have made in my previous statement, she is in the Kotaku as a writer when Gamergate happened. Kotaku is the website involved in the controversy, her words on the subject is therefore discredited. I was not talking about Gamasutra. Exefisher (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You're simply wrong, per established WP sourcing policy. Alexander's earlier pieces are completely valid sources. Your argument effectively eliminates any video game journalist from being used as a source due to being involved in GG, which is not going to happen and would leave even a more biased article against proGG since mainstream sources aren't taking that side with any severity. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No, if a "body" has a vested interest in the outcome of any given situation, then that needs to be taken into consideration. I'm not saying that gamer journalists should be banned as sources, but they need to be treated as the second hand sources they are in some/most cases, and as a political organization with a vested interest in an outcome favorable to them in other cases. For instance any article/blog written by somebody on the "pro-Gamergate" have a vested interest in one outcome right? And the same thing can be said about the journalists that are trying to cover up any misconduct. As such, they can bear witness -- but their witness itself is NOT proof of anything. Proof is actual proof you know? That is why anything reported from a gamer journalist on the subject since they by rule can't be unbiased in something that they are personally involved in, should be seen as a claim made by anyone else. They are no longer valid sources. Referring to them as a source is like Wikipedia referring to itself as a source.--Thronedrei (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It is worth remembering that Alexander's piece in Time is not a significant source in the article, as on the whole it is only being used to support the opinions of Alexander, or to provide additional support to claims that are already referenced. Is there any particular use of the reference that is a concern? - Bilby (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I was talking about the use of biased sources in the broader term, not that Jason Alexander man in particular. Any and all sources need to be treated as what they are if referenced at all when they are being used. I.-E we should not treat a piece written by a person with a clear bias as a "reliable source". Once they are bias they are the opposite of reliable as far ass neutrality go.--Thronedrei (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I assumed that this was focused on Leigh Alexander's article from Time. I guess the main point is that the reliability of a source is dependent on the claim that it is making - strong and controversial claims need strong sources, but uncontroversial ones can be more forgiving. If the sources being questioned are only used for uncontroversial claims, then it isn't a major concern. - Bilby (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Every source has a bias and there is no such thing as perfect objectivity. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

"Biased" is not unusable, per WP's rules. We have to aware of the bias, and make sure that when they state opinions we're clear they are opinions, but their facts are consistent with facts presented by other sources and with even blogs and forum posts that we can't otherwise use, so no one is falsely reporting the facts of the case here. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm tired of people mentioning WP rules and not posting them in their actual post. Please reference the actual wiki rule, don't just link to it since wikipedia is muddled. That said, I don't recall making the claim that biased sources were unusable, I was making the claim that a biased source was invalid and later that they no longer can be considered a reliable source. The issue here is that the article does NOT mention that Alexander has a vested interest in a favorable outcome for himself, nor is it mentioned that Jason Alexander was just posting an opinion and that his articles was not based on actual investigative journalism. Unlike many pro-gamergate posters here, I feel that this gamergate article should be cut down in size and only contain a bare minimum of info. But that is not what has happened here. Opinions written on blogs by bloggers are used as source and evidence when they are nothing but second hand opinions. Since when did Wikipedia start using opinions posted by bloggers as actual proof that something was actually true?--Thronedrei (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe the relevant policy you are looking for is WP:OPINION. If you think there is an opinion piece being used to characterize opinion as fact, or being used to add facts not referenced in other sources, by all means be bold and make the change yourself. Once you do, just mention the change on the talk page in it's own section. aprock (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Brianna Wu paragraphs

After commenting on Twitter about the GamerGate controversy, mocking GamerGate supporters as misogynistic trolls, game developer Brianna Wu was doxed on an Internet discussion board used by GamerGate supporters, including her home address. Subsequently, she received detailed, specific and graphic threats of sexual violence against her and her family, leading her to flee her home. Wu said the threats, coupled with those received by Quinn and Sarkeesian, demonstrated that GamerGate is little more than an angry mob bent on silencing women in video games. "GamerGate could very seriously drive most women out of the industry. I realise that's a very strong statement and I absolutely mean it. I don't know a single woman in this field who is not asking herself if she wants to stay," Wu said.

Writing in Vice, Mike Diver said that while the threats don't represent the viewpoint of everyone involved in GamerGate, many in the movement have attempted to downplay the threats, blame them on Wu or even claim that she made them up. Vox writer Todd VanDerWerff linked the threats against Wu with those made against Quinn and Sarkeesian, stating that GamerGate has a history of targeting women with abuse in an attempt to shut down debate. He said GamerGate supporters interested in discussing journalism ethics have been repeatedly drowned out and marginalized by the movement's "incoherent, misogynistic rabble" leaving GamerGate with little credibility. "The problem with the movement, then, is that it's unable to transcend its horrible roots to have actual discussions. It's clear by now that most #GamerGate supporters simply don't care if they share a movement with hardcore misogynists," he said.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

i dont think a full section on Wu is appropriate. this is not a "list of women harassed under the auspices of gamergate hashtag" (although if we are going to consider the silly Reactions to GamerGate as a possibility, the list qualifies under the equal validity.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest it would be a full section area, but it certainly deserves a couple paragraphs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

One paragraph, maybe. One short paragraph. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Where are the sources? Tutelary (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

They're linked above. One of these days, Wikimedia will come up with a decent way of doing inline sources on talk pages. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, can't see them. Also, I think I can agree with Willhesucceed. You can probably summarise her harassment and link it to the other cases in a single paragraph. Just have to find were to put it. --86.151.133.230 (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Read #Brianna Wu sources FFS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the first sentence is good. The problem with the second sentence is that, as far as I know, this is only about one account making threats and that should be made clear. However, that second paragraph is lopsided. The fact you seem to like the Vox article so much is a pretty good indicator.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

One sentence is all that is needed. The suggested paragraphs shows more of the problems with flooding this article with antiGG quotes when we don't have to keep pounding the nail that the media see the proGG side as bad. There are other factors stemming for articles on Wu that lead to other issues, but we don't need to connect them to Wu. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

While I agree we should not be pushing in so many quotations, the Brianna Wu situations deserves a lot more than a single sentence. For some reason that I don't entirely understand, this particular incident appears to be the one that is taking this well outside the enthusiast press.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Speculation of the three (Quinn, Sarkenstan, and Wu), she is the one that is most approachable and distant from the initial issues, and so the sudden harassment was seemingly out of nowhere (she retweeted some image macros and that appeared to be the thing that set some off against her). It is that reaction that is getting more attention (why there are sources now calling out this as a hate mob), and not so much about Wu's involvement itself. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

She did quite a bit more than that, but BLP rules have caught my tongue. I too am bemused at the attention Wu's getting. I think it's a case of Intel's pulling from Gamasutra making the issue more notable, Quinn not being particularly sympathetic, and Sarkeesian's apparent desire to want to stick to the sidelines. Willhesucceed (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

WAPost "Summary to date" article

[18] This might be good to replace any sources that have been claimed as "biased" as it tries to give a fair shake to the proGG side (though reflecting that much of the media sees that as a mess). --MASEM (t) 04:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It also provides a secondary source for Jennifer Allaway's research — In fact, thousands of Gamergate supporters on 8chan recently passed around a demographic survey on the gaming industry, put together by the researcher Jennifer Allaway; but alas, most of the responses contained only irrelevant (and telling!) messages, like “kill yourself.” NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 October 2014

This should probably be set to reflect that it's affected by current events, given the threat at Utah State University (or at least some acknowledgement of the sort). Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done the purpose of that tag is for a currently breaking story. we are not going to "current event" everytime gamergaters send a death threat to another woman, otherwise it would never leave. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Brianna Wu sources

BBC News: GamerGate: 'Press must tackle misogyny,' says developer - "GamerGate could very seriously drive most women out of the industry. I realise that's a very strong statement and I absolutely mean it. I don't know a single woman in this field who is not asking herself if she wants to stay."

Vice: Does someone have to actually die before GamerGate calms down? - "GamerGate, to date, has taught us nothing. OK, maybe it's taught us that certain men are horrible and have no shame in announcing their hatred of women to the world in the most hideous manner available to them. If GamerGate really was about ethics, Wu or Sarkeesian wouldn't be going through what they are."

Vox: [19]

MSNBC: [20]

The Boston Globe: [21]

All of this relies pretty much on her word alone, it should a mention but the coverage it got it's amazing for a obscure designer/programmer Loganmac (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Harassment of supporters of Gamergate

We finally have enough sources to note this, I think.

Techcrunch:

Since I wrote my initial draft, reports have emerged of increasingly worrying attacks on GamerGate supporters. A friendly reporter had a suspicious syringe sent to his house. There have been real-life threats. People have received intimidating phonecalls and text messages from complete strangers. An academic who supports GamerGate was doxxed and received a violent threat. Major games publications have yet to report on these attacks against their consumers.

Reason:

The TFYC hacking was just one of many disturbing incidents directed at GamerGate supporters. In late September, there was a "doxxing"—net-speak for public release of private information—directed at six prominent GamerGate supporters including Yiannopoulous and Baldwin, with their "crimes" listed alongside their home addresses. Yiannopoulous also received a jiffy bag in the mail containing a syringe. Oliver Campbell, a black male videogame journalist, has written about being harassed and threatened on Twitter after he spoke out in support of GamerGate.

A young female gamergater who wanted to be identified only as Lizzy F.—she says there have been attempts to hack into her email and Twitter account—wrote to me in an email that she has experienced a stream of harassment:

'I have been told to drop dead on multiple occasions, and received a threat of "I hope your windows are secure." The last statement was sent from someone who also threatened to release the home address of another female supporter. I have been called a gender traitor, a "token," all off the female derogatory slurs in the book, and even had my "woman card" revoked, somehow.'

Most hurtful, Lizzy says, was the accusation of "internalized misogyny" and tweets dismissing her as a male troll posing as a female. Like many other women involved in GamerGate, Lizzy had to resort to posting a photo as proof of her womanhood.

Slate:

Consequently, harassment has also been directed in return at GamerGate supporters themselves, who at this point endure constant doxing and torment of their own members; hashtag searches makes finding harassment targets easy. An unfailingly civil university professor who supported GamerGate on Twitter was doxed, told she was a “self hating fucker,” and warned that if she didn’t stop posting, “its time to just shove something metal and sharp in the closed up cunt of yours and twist.” Another anonymous woman was simply told, “I know where you live [and] know who your family is. Stop posting about #gamergate.” Such occurrences are now commonplace.

Forbes:

abuse goes both ways. According to some #GamerGate is the tech world’s version of ISIS, the resurgent Middle-Eastern militant group responsible for things like killing and beheading innocent people. I’ve spoken with writers who claim to have been blacklisted for showing support for the movement.

Willhesucceed (talk) 11:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think that it would be a mistake to do a section specifically on harassment of GG supporters, but I don't have a problem with an "Online harassment" section that covers (briefly) events from all perspectives. Harassment continues to be an issue - mostly from GG supporters, but also to them, so including this in the coverage as an ongoing concern makes sense. - Bilby (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There's little to no proof the harassment isn't from trolls. The few who have threatened anyone under the tag have been reported by Gamergate supporters. But the sources don't report that. I wonder why. It can't be because "women under attack by nerds!" makes a great story. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

oh poor poor poor gamergaters first people ignore their claims of conflict of interest because they are harassing. now people ignore their claims of harassment. its sooooooo horrible to be such an oppressed minority! what WP:SYSTEMICBIAS !!!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

In the same sense, there's little or no proof that the attacks on GG supporters are not from trolls - the lack of formal membership criteria makes it difficult to know who anyone is. All we can report is that harassment is occurring, both to GamerGate supporters and to people who have spoken against GamerGate, if we want to take that path. - Bilby (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, a section devoted to the online harassment is probably best. Willhesucceed (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

We can definitely have a section for discussing the general harassment of both sides and its implications.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I support the creation of such a section, though not without the awareness that this would be about the documentation of shit-slinging against both sides.

A section on this has been needed for a lot of time. Are there any sources yet on Boogie2988, JonTron, Eron getting doxxed and Milo Yiannopoulos getting a syringe sent to his house? I really stopped looking Loganmac (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Quinn picture

Given that the picture on Zoe Quinn got switched out for a cropped headshot, should the picture here get replaced as well? Also, since it's still a crummy picture either way, has anyone asked her if she'll release a better photo of herself into the public domain or licensed as CC-BY-SA? --PresN 22:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the uncropped picture on both articles, it shows Quinn at an industry event. Whereas the crop just shows a face. I thought about cropping it originally, but couldn't get it a size I liked without including too much of the guy on the right, so just left it as is. By chance, I spotted Quinn commenting on the photo in a Reddit thread and directed her to Wikimedia Commons[22] - hahnchen 00:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

She's released another picture of herself as CC-BY-SA, it's now up on Zoe Quinn if anyone thinks it's better. --PresN 03:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That picture looks really amateurish for an Encyclopedia, the picture in the article is fine. Good quality and shows her at a gaming event as mentioned Loganmac (talk) 08:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Leigh Alexander's "list of ethics problems"

From her own blog.

Understanding she's involved, etc. etc. , that this is an SPS, etc. etc. I will point out that I've seen this linked now from a few other RS places (eg [23]) to show that there is legit ethical concerns in the industry above and beyond the current GG issue. I know there's other sources that are by VG journalists that affirm that there are self-recognized problems with how the current VG journalism industry is being run. I'm just not 100% sure how to include it or if it needs including. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Could probably go at the end of the second paragraph. Artw (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

And no, showing that concerns about journalistic ethics in games journalism exist does not support the claim that GakerGate has ever addressed them, in fact per the source they have not. Artw (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that she made that blog post purely in reaction to the GamerGate thing. [no citation] No idea how it's relevant, just putting it out there. --86.140.193.247 (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, could we get a couple of those mentioned source in here as well? Would be nice to substantiate the points she makes in her blog with other sources. --86.140.193.247 (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure we can source better the specific cases, my suggestion is that here is a journalist that provides a partial list of what issues they know are wrong with game journalism, suggesting they want to also try to fix the situation with input from those concerned about it. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If we're mentioning said ethical problems it's fine. It's funny that she doesn't even mention the major ethical problems in gaming right now that involves her though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganmac (talk • contribs) 08:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Vox Media owns Polygon. Are we relying on Vox and its subsidiaries too heavily?

Vox Media owns Polygon, one of the sites which ran the "Death of Gamers" slew and whose members were on the GameJournoPros list. Considering that they have a financial interest in making GamerGate go away (Polygon has lost advertisers from GamerGate email campaigns), should we really use them as 8 (2 Vox, 5 Verge, 1 Polygon found in a cursory glance. I'm sure there's more) of the 75 citations?--ArmyLine (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Stop pulling conflicts of interest out of your ass.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

And also, this is premature and unwarranted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Per the latest GamerGate "campaign" they are at war with the following: Kotaku; Polygon; Destructoid; Rock, Paper, Shotgun; The Escapist; Motherboard; IGN; GameSpot; Gamasutra; Gameranx; PCGamer.com; Xbox 360: The Official Xbox Magazine; Total Xbox; Gameplanet; Gizmodo; TechCrunch; Ars Technica; VICE; The Daily Dot; Badass Digest; The Daily Beast; Raw Story; The Mary Sue; Salon; BuzzFeed; Uproxx; Paste Magazine; Wired; The New Yorker; Cracked; Mic; xoJane; The Verge; Gawker; Valleywag; Defamer; Lifehacker; Deadspin; Screamer; io9; Sploid; Jalopnik; Paging Dr. NerdLove; RationalWiki; TV Tropes

I would say this does not block any of them from being seen as a potential source of RSs. TV Tropes may be difficult to squeeze in though. Artw (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"Every single major media outlet is biased against us. Therefore, you can't use any of those major media outlets as sources in our article." Quite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I make a simple observation and I get swore at and attacked for it by the two heaviest editors of this article. No wonder this article is such a hit piece.--ArmyLine (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe someone other than Ryu should comment on this?Tupin (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you two need to stop drinking the koolaid and instead acknowledge quality over quantity.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"Drinking the koolaid"? Like there's some widespread "far-right" misinformation campaign brainwashing people? Horseshoe theory proves itself again.--ArmyLine (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No. What I'm saying is that you lot need to stop attacking me over the number of edits I've made to this article and its talk page as has been done to me off site by any idiot gater who thinks the mere volume of edits I've made to this page out of the hundreds of thousands of edits I've made elsewhere across the project means anything here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what part of my statement could possibly constitute an "attack." I observed that you are, once again, raising the umpteen-times-rejected idea that GamerGate campaigning against a source makes the source invalid, unreliable or otherwise unusable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

And non-gaming sources like Forbes have a financial interest in finding new audiences. It's capitalism, and financial interests happen. Luckily, our reliable source guidelines care more about reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. Woodroar (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 October 2014

This article is in no way objective and is clearly editorialized. I suggest deleting this page and starting over.

122.210.183.62 (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This is neither a valid nor an uncontroversial request that can be handled by this template.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

How about you start rewriting it, then submit your work? I think the problem is that it was a bit of a websites vs the users situation, and the websites are much easier to source than the users.Halfhat (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible sources for a gamergate opinions

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/gamergate-interviews/12391-Glaive-GamerGate-Interview They're quite hard to find since most sites have largely been opposed to it, so I thought it'd be worth posting this one as possible it could be useful as a source.Halfhat (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I don't want to make separate sections for them so I'll post anyother possible sources here, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29616197 this one covers some for and against, as well as what going on with Brainna Wu.Halfhat (talk) 08:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Escapist did a whole bunch of interviews like that, but because of various issues surrounding them (that they did a similar series with female devs a few months back but all the devs there stayed anonymous; that they have had to pull a few of the interviews when they were found to be overly proGG, etc.) that we should avoid those. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yahoo News on Twitter's role in GG

[24] stating that Twitter could take tech measures to help prevent the harassment but hasn't/doesn't compared to Facebook. I believe there was an earlier piece someone else posted that was about Twitter that included GG's impact, so there's possibly a point here. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That's the Slate article, linked under BBC Radio Matters. It seems we should acknowledge how the online nature of this controversy has shaped it, in a more cohesive fashion than a few scattered sentences. Maybe a paragraph somewhere, if we can find enough sources. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Also Businessweek now [25]. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested edit - ending clause with preposition followed immediately by another preposition.

Please consider changing the opening clause in the second paragraph from:

"The controversy came to wider attention due to a sustained campaign of harassment that indie game developer Zoe Quinn was subjected to after..."

to:

"The controversy came to wider attention due to a sustained campaign of harassment to which indie game developer Zoe Quinn was subjected after..." David in DC (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

How about "The controversy came to wider attention due to a sustained campaign of harassment targeting indie game developer Zoe Quinn after..." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Solves the same problem less clunkily than my proposal. Cool by me. David in DC (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Utah Terror Threat

Anita Sarkeesian Cancels Speech Following Terror Threats Artw (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Polygon too, suspect we'll have a local paper on it within 12hrs. Already creating strong opinions on the vg writer side, waiting to see the larger response. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Salt Lake Tribune. --MASEM (t) 03:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Forbes, Ars Technica, Southern California Public Radio, Logan Herald-Journal (the local paper for Utah State University's college town). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's the original article, which states "the threat didn’t cite #GamerGate, but it’s just one example of the tone that’s appeared online since the hashtag appeared weeks ago." Kind of curious about the process in which the demonstrably factitious insertion of "I admit that it is unrelated but I'm just gonna stick it in here anyway" telephones into "directly related and worthy of incorporation". Perhaps it's related to the processing of sausage.--ArmyLine (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope. That's exactly what secondary sources do — they take primary sources, analyze and synthesize. We can't do that ourselves on Wikipedia (per WP:OR), but we can certainly quote secondary sources that do it.

Moreover, as per reliable sources, Anita has since stated that at least one of the threats directly referenced GamerGate. [26] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious what your yardstick is for a "reliable source" and why VentureBeat is one but Brietbart isn't.ArmyLine (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Neither are. aprock (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call VentureBeat a great source, but unlike Breitbart, it doesn't have a reputation for publishing half-truths, misinterpretations, outright falsehoods and literal fabrications when necessary to suit its explicitly-ideological goals.

But I'm not sure why you're bringing up VentureBeat because I'm not citing VentureBeat, I'm citing Ars Technica, the Logan Herald-Journal, Forbes, The Deseret News, etc. When someone makes threats of an anti-feminist massacre at a major public university, you're gonna get some mainstream coverage, as this has. We don't even need the VentureBeat story, honestly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What does this have to with GamerGate? Loganmac (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

it's on CNN now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

In the morning wave of news stories, these threats against Sarkeesian have been explicitly tied to Gamergate by, among others, the Washington Post, The Guardian, KSL, the Salt Lake Tribune. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeesh, just when you think this couldn't get any uglier... This certainly puts the kibosh on the "poor souls just concerned about journalism ethics" bit ,at any rate. Tarc (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

We just need to make sure when this is added we don't get anywhere close to being critical of gun laws (which I've seen floated around in some sources). Somethink like "Sarkeenian cancelled a speaking engagement at ASU after the school received a threat of a shooting massacre if she were allowed to speak, and the school was unable to assure her safety." --MASEM (t) 14:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we have to be critical of gun laws, but yeah, we can mention the exact reason why she cancelled it — that the university was unable to assure Sarkeesian that guns wouldn't be allowed in the speaking venue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the university in question is an unrelated party in all this, I think it would be nice to note precisely why they would not do that, i.e. that gun laws prohibit them from doing such things.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is relevant to this thread as it was published just days before the threats were announced.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Admins: proposed small wording change

Currently, the {{edit protected}} article includes this sentence: Forbes' Erik Kain, while stating Gamasutra shouldn't be punished for opinions of its writers, described Intel's decision as "a consumer movement, not an anti-women movement."[60] Having read the cited article, I'd propose this revised sentence: Forbes' game reporter and critic Erik Kain wrote that he disagreed with Intel's decision to pull its ads, but said he believed the decision was motivated by Intel's understanding of the campaign as "a consumer movement, not an anti-women movement."[60] Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for catching that. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. I think it's better, but I think we should maybe tweek it. I don't think it's intel he disagreed with but the people doing the pressuring he said "I can understand why Intel pulled their ads, even though I disagree that this is the best method to continue the #GamerGate debate". Maybe something more like "Forbes' game reporter and critic Erik Kain wrote that he believed Intel's decision to remove its ads was motivated by Intel's understanding of the campaign as "a consumer movement, not an anti-women movement. However he felt that trying to censure people is not beneficial."[60]"Halfhat (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The third paragraph could do with some work

The rising popularity of the medium, and greater emphasis on games as a potential art form, has led to a commensurate focus on social criticism within gaming media and indie works.[9][12][13] This shift has prompted opposition from traditional "hardcore" gamers who view games purely as a form of entertainment.[6][9][12][14] This opposition, however, has often been expressed in the form of personal harassment of female figures in the industry rather than constructive cultural conversations.[10][12] The harassment campaign against Quinn was of such ferocity as to attract significant mainstream media attention which focused on the sexist, misogynistic and trolling elements within the gamer community. Allegations of impropriety in gaming media have prompted policy changes at several outlets, and commentators generally agree that systemic problems in the gaming media need to be discussed; however, the harassment and misogyny associated with Gamergate is seen as having poisoned the well.[10][12][15] Furthermore, the choice to focus the campaign on a heretofore relatively obscure independent developer rather than AAA publishers has led to questions about its motivations.[14][15]

Several words seems poorly chosen. I think the use of the word campaign so be avoided, it's quite emotive and intimidating. I'd remove the reference to choice in ". . . the choice to focus the campaign. . . ." to make it more like ". . . the movement's greater focus. . . . ". We don't know of any leadership. I also question the use of personal harassment instead of just harassment. I don't see how it adds any actual information while it's quite emotive.

I think it also seems to make some assumptions."The harassment campaign against Quinn was of such ferocity. . . ." this would really need a citation, this is presenting unique information. "This opposition, however, has often been expressed in the form of. . . ." again I don't think you can assume the motives behind these people.

That's just my two cents Halfhat (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Words are emotive. There was a harassment *campaign* against Quinn which is well-sourced and unassailable. The "ferocity" part is similarly well-sourced. If you want another [X] cite tag there, we can easily do it. The fact that the opposition has often been expressed in personal harassment is, yet again, well-sourced. We're not assuming anything, we're reporting what reliable sources have said.

The fact that there isn't any leadership doesn't prevent us from stating that the movement made choices. A leaderless mob can still make choices. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Words are emotive. However we want the articles to be nuetral and not express an opinion, using unnecessary emotive language does that. If there's a source for the ferocity of the harassment was the reason for the media attention then I think it needs to be more clear. If either of the citations say that the disapproval of the shift of gaming culture was expressed as harrassment I seem to have missed it, which I accept is possible. Reading source 10 also makes me question it's use as source for things other than opinion, it seems highly opinionated. Though I'm probably not experienced enough to really discuss that Halfhat (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) re: "The harassment campaign against Quinn was of such ferocity. . . ." content in the lead does not need a footnote if it is appropriately sourced in the body, and with dozens of such sources linked in the body no, it does not need a cite in the lead. It is hardly controversial - I have not seen one source that says the campaign of harassment was anything but over-the-top vile.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying the harassment wasn't ferocious. What I'm saying is we can't assume that that was the cause of the media attention.Halfhat (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thats right, they covered it because they were interested in her sex life. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe it was something like she was easy to contact to cover the issue. Was easy to do sufficient background research due to previous coverage. My point is you are making a specific claim which is being assumed. That is not good. Halfhat (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Timeline source

Reason.com Has the above source been used? If not, it could be included. Retartist (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Is reason.com considered a reliable source? I also skimmed it and it seemed quite pro-GG as well, though some anti-GG sources were used so I don't think there's a problem with that. Halfhat (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this has been discussed already. I could swear that there's a discussion elsewhere on this page about me allegedly violating WP:SYN by agreeing with someone wanting to say that the two female devs namedropped in this piece actually have been the targets of misogynist and sexist harassment by citing the news stories in question along with this piece. It also gets a lot of the details wrong, like the claim that one of Quinn's other partners was a judge in a contest Depression Quest won when Papers Please won and DQ only got an honorable mention. And it frames the hatred of Quinn as being related to the TFYC dispute when I don't think gamergate had any clue about TFYC until Gamergate happened because I don't think I ever saw Vivian James before August of this year.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Look above somewhere. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Decent GameIndustry.biz article on why GG is happening (coincides with some mainstream)

[27]. Writer is sympathetic with the proGG side and points out that this is a backlash to the changing nature of video games, which is a point I think has come up in a few mainstream sources published over the last few days in response to the Wu and Sarkeensian pieces. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Saw this, pretty neutral. Are you adding something from this. I see every time you post even mildly proGG articles your post gets ignored into oblivion and nothing happens Loganmac (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty wrong, as it avoids talking about all of the substantive concerns. It's fine to add to the pile of sources that say the shifting medium contributes, but other than that there's not much value to it. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

BBC Radio Business Matters 2

Roger Hearing: "What lies at the core of the movement called Gamergate is actually concern amongst gamers that they're being deceived, that the people who write about new games have got rather too cozy with the people who make them, that they're damaging the industry by failing to be honest with the readers and the game-players."

Kain notes that The Escapist Magazine was upfront with problems in its policies, and addressed them with new ethics guidelines. Thinks that other game review/critic/reporting sites should be more upfront about what's going on. "A lot of these ... video game publishers pay for press to go to these events, preview events where they go and their plane tickets and hotel rooms are all paid for ... free food, free drinks, it's all very flattering as a journalist to be wined and dined and to get an all-expenses paid trip to cover a video game. But I think that it creates problematic coverage of that video game from a consumer standpoint." Consumer groups, ombudsmen, and a standard code of ethics have been suggested to solve these problems. "A lot of what we're seeing is growing pains ... The gaming press is very young compared to ... people covering film. People often say we don't have a Roger Ebert of [game] criticism ... The press does have a long ways to go, the industry has a long ways to go. That even ties into some of these issues with misogyny and sexism ... This is such a young and male-driven industry ..."

David: "What it really boils down to: transparency is partially correct, but ultimately you should let market forces decide ... We know that this [ethically grey conduct] goes on in many different types of industries."

~17:00 http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/business/business_20141015-0100a.mp3

Willhesucceed (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Between this episode and the previous one, above, where the woman notes there are serious ethical concerns, it deserves bigger mention. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

While it is not our place to dissect these sources, this podcast is assuming that the movement is focusing on the big name publishers when it summarily has not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately coverage has tended to focus on a subset of a portion of the concerns--those that are juicy tabloid fodder, I guess--which has had the effect of narrowing Gamergate concerns for now because they're on the defensive, but hopefully now that it's more mainstream other business outlets and such will be able to provide a clearer picture. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the issue has gone more mainstream, i.e. Talk:Gamergate controversy#Utah Terror Threat, but unfortunately not in the direction that you'd prefer. "Angry gamers threaten school shooting" is what the traditional media will run with now; the encyclopedia and this and related articles will reflect that. Tarc (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And it's great that some sources are reporting the facts: "An anonymous person ... The threat didn’t cite #GamerGate ..." VB And it's a good thing all Middle Easterners aren't tarred with the ISIS brush, right? Anyway, we're veering into forum territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willhesucceed (talk • contribs) 16:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No we will absolutely not. Some have run with that, but there are still sources reporting on that and staying neutral like the BBC. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we absolutely will (ain't imperative sentences grand?), IF reliable sources begin to focus exclusively on the hate and harassment, which is the direction they are heading. Tarc (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

If the majority of them (particularly mainstream) go that way, then yes, that's how we'll have to do it, but they aren't there yet and there's still possible course correction if this last batch of antiGG support doesn't turn things around. --MASEM (t) 01:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

NYT

link

Pretty disappointing. Thought they'd put more effort into it. Oh well. Willhesucceed (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

“ While the online attacks on women have intensified in the last few months, the dynamics behind the harassment go back much further. They arise from larger changes in the video game business that have redefined the audience for its products, expanding it well beyond the traditional young, male demographic. They also reflect the central role games play in the identity of many fans. ”

and

“ The malice directed recently at women, though, is more intense, invigorated by the anonymity of social media and bulletin boards where groups go to cheer each other on and hatch plans for action. The atmosphere has become so toxic, say female game critics and developers, that they are calling on big companies in the $70 billion a year video game business to break their silence. ”

Stand out in particular. Tarc (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Also

“ The threats against Ms. Sarkeesian are the most noxious example of a weekslong campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry and its culture. The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage. The more extreme threats, though, seem to be the work of a much smaller faction and aimed at women. Major games companies have so far mostly tried to steer clear of the vitriol, leading to calls for them to intervene. ”

Pay attention to the wording. Willhesucceed (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Your mean the wording that indicates that the "pro-Gamergate" factions keep sliding the goalposts backwards ever few weeks? Loud & clear, brah. Initially, these people and their defenders staked their defensive line on "harassment didn't happen", then it was proven that it did. Then it fell back on "it wasn't so bad", till it was shown that it was. Now we're approaching the Maginot Line; "it wasn't us!" I call that progress. Tarc (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why you're haranguing me. I'm just pointing out the section. Willhesucceed (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Key quote from the director of the International Game Developers Association, showing the industry's stance:

“ Ms. Edwards said changes in games and the audience around them have been difficult for some gamers to accept. “The entire world around them has changed,” she said. “Whether they realize it or not, they’re no longer special in that way. Everyone is playing games.” ”

HuffPost Live

has reported on the issue three times now.

Wu, Kain, and 8chan's founder interviewed: mostly focuses on harassment.

Gamergate and three women who support it: mostly discusses ethical concerns and the misrepresentation in the media.

Is Gamergate being given a fair shake? Discusses the topic with three video game journalists.

Willhesucceed (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Huffington Post is a very very weak source, and generally not appropriate for contested articles like this. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ya, I know, thought it was source worth noting here for easy reference if anything else comes up. Willhesucceed (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

In the third paragraph, can we change "The harassment campaign against Quinn" to "The harassment campaign against Quinn and others". Several mainstream sources also discuss the harassment of Sarkeesian, Fish, and other developers and critics caught up in Gamergate. Kaldari (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

CNN

link

Willhesucceed (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It could maybe be used. It certainly seems like it was written by an outsider, that is really a good thing. It could be fleshed out more but how about adding

"Writting for CNN Brandon Griggs argued that while it was "at a basic level" a discussion journalistic integrity and gaming culture, it has also been used an excuse for harassment, particularly against women" Though someone else could probably do a better job. Halfhat (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Playstation Universe considered a reliable source?

They have a pretty interesting article that could be used for opinions and commentary. http://www.psu.com/feature/24941/GamerGate-and-MSNBC--Understanding-the-culture-war If it's considered reliable it could be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfhat (talk • contribs) 23:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

any non-known source that starts "You know that reliable source - its entirely wrong" is probably not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting sources does not mean that X source is reliable while Y is not. They have to be evaluated based on reputation, editorial control, and the like. Editorial control is one of the biggest factors. They have editorial control. and even have an article here. If we're going to put RS based on editorial control, then yes, this would be a RS. They also do screen people before hiring them and actually do hire people. See http://www.psu.com/site/jobs Tutelary (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

and sony has no reputation for presenting news with accuracy and fact checking and it is calling a major news station with a reputation decades long. Which do we consider the reliable source? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources can still be wrong though. Throwing out PSU for not being in agreement with a reliable source is not valid. You can't say "Y is not reliable because they disagree with X about this subject" and expect people to take it seriously. If you think PSU isn't a reliable, bring up actual concerns with it. 24.192.67.45 (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There are multiple other sources which agree with PSU, just not specifically as re: MSNBC. However, considering it's otherwise in line with other RSs, it seems okay to me to use as an opinion. As to whether it's noteworthy ... Considering everything else going on, one website's opinion of one news outlet's coverage seems irrelevant. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It was discussed here, although there wasn't much of a discussion at all. Might want to start a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Woodroar (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

as an opinion it is clearly undue. there is not one reliable source which suggests that gamergate is not primarily about harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Basic Lack of Explanation

I clicked to this article to get a basic understanding of what a news report meant when it called someone a "Gamergate critic," and after reading the entire article, I'm still confused as to what "Pro-gamergate" or "we in GamerGate" means or really even what a "GamerGater" is. I think this means the article is missing a very basic explanation in the intro section, probably because everyone editing the article has that knowledge, and possibly because it's hard to explain. I'm getting a fuzzy understanding that GamerGaters are critical of people who are critical of misogyny in gaming, is that correct? Obviously this is not something I can fix <g>, so I thought I'd bring it up here. EDIT TO ADD: Actually, maybe I can fix it...I could add as a final sentence to the first paragraph of the intro, "GamerGaters" are gamers who are critical of people who make accusations of misogyny in gaming." Then someone who understands the issue more clearly than I can come along and fix it. But that would require two protected edit requests, eh? I'm happy to make the first if no one objects. valereee (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There simply is no clear cut definition of what all of this is, which is why it is referred to as a controversy rather than a social movement. And, your definition is actually incorrect as far as I can discern. "Gamergaters" want better ethics in video game journalism, while those contra to them believe it is a conservativistic backlash against diversity in video games and those who play them when they factor in the misogyny, harassment, and death threats sent to public women in video gaming, which in turn prompted the development of a side movement that goes "we're women, gays, not-whites, etc. who play video games and want ethics in journalism".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is locked, so there's no way we can add such basic clarifications and fix it; we should hang our heads in shame of the poor work done. Is there a way we can start it all over again and get a smaller version which actually explains what happens and only contains content we can all agree with? (BTW, Recode has a basic vocabulary definition, we could use that to explain the jargon). Diego (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(E/c)some gamergaters want what they claim to be "better ethics in video game journalism" but when you drill into the specifics of their issues is essentially that they do not want journalists to cover any cultural aspects of games or to cover games that do not fit traditional high end corporate video games. the loudest aspects using the gamergate hashtag merely use that pretense as coordinating effort to harass women.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong/TRPoD, but there has to be SOME basic understanding in the heads of people who use the term "GamerGater" of what it is they're trying to convey. Does it mean someone who is in FAVOR of those critical of ethics in video game journalism? Those opposed to accusations of misogyny in video games? It's somewhere in there. We can't find some agreement on what the term even MEANS? Diego Moya, instead of starting all over again, perhaps a new page, "GamerGater" which tries to simply define what that means? Not explain the controversy -- just discuss what it means when someone says they support or oppose GamerGate. valereee (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with describing it is that it's a leaderless anonymous identity movement with the only barrier to entry being the ability to type a hashtag into Twitter. So, as reliable sources have put it... while there are a number of people using it who genuinely believe there are problems with video games journalism, there are also a number of people using it whose intent is to harass women into silence. As TRPoD mentioned, the "problems" in journalism that have been mentioned are, at best, vague and ill-defined except that they don't like the fact that some outlets publish reviews by ostensible-"SJWs" which include social criticism of video games. I've heard a few say, incoherently, that what they want is "objective reviews" of games — which is literally a contradiction in terms. So it's always going to be really complex, but I agree we can do a better job than what we've got. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess I just feel like throwing up our hands and saying "Not only can no one explain this, we can't even come to terms of agreement on DEFINITIONS" is...dismaying.  :) Even if the explanation has to be something like, "Supporters of "Gamergate" are variously described either as misogynists reacting to feminist criticism of video games or as critics of journalistic ethics within the video game reporting field." With appropriate sourcing, of course. I mean, there has to be SOME statement that can be made that can at least frame what people mean when they call themselves or someone else a GamerGater. So that when newbs come in, they at least have a hook to hang the term on. valereee (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

'Supporters of "Gamergate" have generally been described as misogynists reacting to feminist criticism of video games or as critics of journalistic ethics within the video game industry's press." That's a great suggestion, as it makes the two major issues/camps clear for newcomers. I tweaked it slightly. Thank you very much for joining the discussion on this page. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Its not up to us to create a coherent rationale for gamergaters because they have been unable to do so for themselves. We report what the reliably published sources say and what they say is: "gameragate is a harassment campaign that has a vague un-articulated set of complaints that mostly are we dont like that gamers are being called sexist and it is our complaints that should be given priority and coverage and not the concerns about the death threats issued under our name - the harassment doesnt count." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD, it's not up to us to create the rationale, but we can state what the mainstream press is saying about both ends of the spectrum. valereee (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

again, right from the lead: "Although these concerns proved unfounded,(8a) allegations about journalistic ethics continued to clash with allegations of harassment and misogyny.(10) Other topics of debate have included perceived changes or threats to the "gamer" identity as a result of the ongoing maturation and diversification of the gaming industry. ... This opposition, however, has often been expressed in the form of personal harassment of female figures in the industry rather than constructive cultural conversations.(10)(12) The harassment campaign against Quinn was of such ferocity as to attract significant mainstream media attention which focused on the sexist, misogynistic and trolling elements within the gamer community. Allegations of impropriety in gaming media have prompted policy changes at several outlets, and commentators generally agree that systemic problems in the gaming media need to be discussed; however, the harassment and misogyny associated with Gamergate is seen as having poisoned the well.(10 12 15) Furthermore, the choice to focus the campaign on a heretofore relatively obscure independent developer rather than AAA publishers has led to questions about its motivations.(14 15)" Are you sure you are reading our article ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD, yes, I'm reading your article.  :) All that doesn't tell me which of these two elements is "Pro-GG" which is what brought me here in the first place and which seems very basic to understanding any discussion of the issue. valereee (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no real description of "pro-GG" or "anti-GG" unless it's something being said by someone who defines themselves as "pro-GG". The article describes that the Gamergate movement wants to discuss issues of ethics in video games journalism. The article goes on to also describe that there are many who believe that the movement is a vague justification for continuing gamers' propensity to attack women and outsiders, considering that the focus has been spent on independent games and their developers (who tend to be women) rather than the big name studios that have the financial means to actually produce conflicts of interest that do not revolve around accusations of who has had sex with who.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

For instance, the post just following this one mentions an article where the "Writer is sympathetic with the proGG side" so clearly that's something those editing this article understand as a shorthand for...what? valereee (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

as per the Guardian, ( in the Guardian's voice and not an opinion piece ) "Ostensibly a campaign against corruption in journalism but in practice a grassroots attack on feminist critics in gaming" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

BBC Business Matters, Reason, Techcrunch, Forbes, Slate and others disagree with you on that. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, there is no clear cut, unbiased definition of what GamerGate is out there, and what it is depends who you ask as to the specifics. (Your definition, for example, is strongly pro-GG, and that's not anything supported by articles). It is a complex mess, so the best descriptor is that it is a controversy over two major sets of issues, as started in August 2014. To define it anymore would be to engage in too much detail within the lead. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, I can't agree that to define it in a way that at the very least gives someone new-to-the-issue some sort of basic understanding of what the two sides are arguing represents providing too much detail in the lead. valereee (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Every mainstream press article that tries to define it has to spend several paragraphs to set the stage so they can get to the point of defining two sides (as each side sees it) for the unaware, the same approach we would have to take, which would be too much for the lead. It's a controversy, it involves two major elements (sexism and misogyny in the video game culture, and journalism ethics). --MASEM (t) 14:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, but that's actually a reasonable explanation: it involves two major elements: sexism and misogyny in the video game culture, and journalism ethics. It doesn't have to be a long explanation, and it can be objectively stated. As it stands there is NO basic explanation whatsoever. valereee (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

what article are you reading? Gamergate (sometimes referred to as GamerGate or as a hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy in video game culture which began in August 2014. It concerns ingrained(1) issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community, as well as journalistic ethics in the online gaming press," -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD, but which is which, I guess, is the issue I couldn't figure out. Which is Pro-GG? What does it mean to be Pro-GG? Does that mean you are in the sexism/misogyny camp or in the journalistic ethics camp? EDIT TO ADD: I've figured it out by now, of course, after all this discussion here in the Talk page, but when I first read the article, I had no idea. THAT's what I meant by needing more explanation. valereee (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The only thing I would say that's missing is identifying the parties, but that was highly contested because even the lines on that that were not clearly drawn. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, and that's what I'm asking if we can agree on. I hear you that this is highly contested, but is there ANY explanation of what Pro-GG means? valereee (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

so your concern is that we dont specifically define the terms "pro-gamergater" and "anti-gamergater"? I am not sure why we would try, its not like there are official "party affiliations" that people sign on to with defined platform and position statements. and We only use "pro-gamergate" once in the article (and never use "anti") and its use is near the end where context should be clear. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD, my concern is that when someone unfamiliar with this topic but who has recently read somewhere the term "sympathetic to gamergate" or "critic of gamergate" comes here to try to figure out what that means, we've failed them in a very basic way. valereee (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a suggested content change that would help? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD, I was thinking some explanation of the shorthand we're using when we say "sympathetic to" or "critical of" gamergate -- something we can agree on that is generally what is meant by these types of shorthands. I'm asking if we can get some agreement on a very simple explanation of what these terms are intended to convey to those in the know. valereee (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

so somethings like changing "The controversy came to wider attention due to a sustained campaign of harassment that indie game developer Zoe Quinn was subjected to " to "he controversy came to wider attention due to a sustained campaign of harassment under the hashtag #gamgergate that indie game developer Zoe Quinn was subjected to " and "allegations about journalistic ethics continued to clash with allegations of harassment and misogyny" to "allegations about journalistic ethics under the gamergate hashtag continued to clash with allegations of harassment and misogyny committed under the hashtag"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking of something more direct: The two primary 'sides' in the argument are generally those who are focussed on accusations regarding journalistic ethics (generally, "sympathetic to Gamergate") those who are focussed on accusations of misogyny ("critics of Gamergate.") Or something along those lines that can be agreed upon as generally what we mean when we're discussing the issue using those types of or similar designations. valereee (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

except there are not actually any "sides" - theres a bunch of tweets under a hashtag, with the most notable being vile harassment. There are people appalled by the harassment. There are people saying "ignore the harassment" look at this other stuff. There are death threats. There are people leaving the industry. there are people saying "there is tangential stuff that might be interesting, but you are focused on minor issues of women's sex life and are not adequately responding to the harassers in your midst acting under your name. there is harassment of those who dont cover the "look at this". Its not A vs B. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

However we want to phrase it, though, you'll agree there are people who call themselves or are called sympathetic to gamergate and those who would call themselves/be called critics of it? That's the key issue, IMO. I would hazard to say that the MOST frequent reason someone comes to this page is to answer that question because they came across an article that said someone was "Pro-GG" or whatever and were wondering what that indicated. I'm off to the airport. Maybe I can come up with a couple of sources that describe 'sympathetic to" and "critical of" gamergate that could provide a starting point. valereee (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No, i dont agree that everything can or should be boiled down to a "them vs us" in general or in particular in regards to this bruhaha. It is people promoting that type of simplistic "it must be either / or" ("it must be my shoot em up games or those crappy art games, and I am not going to let it be art games without a fight" that are behind this whole mess in the first place -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD, I agree, not everything can or should be boiled down to an us vs. them paradigm. I do believe that in order to understand this issue, we need to be able to understand what people mean when they say, "sympathetic to GG" or "critic of GG." That's all I'm looking for. valereee (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I dont think that is possible. no one who says "i am progamergate" means "I am all for violent harassment of women in games and the gaming industry". but you do have a group of people who are attempting to insist that a word means one thing and the world must go along with their meaning and the rest of the world saying that word has been so intensely associated with violent harassment of women that it cannot "mean" anything else. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

At one point I added in the lead who the main parties were (a subset of gamers , and game devs and journalists) but this was highly critisized because the groups are not that exclusive - there's some devs/journalists that side with the proGG, and there's gamers that are decidedly antiGG. However, I will still contend that for a lead statement and with the application of common sense, that that type of statement is not to be read as exclusiviely limiting the line between those two groups. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

These two sources might be useful:

• Hathaway, Jay (October 10, 2014). "What is Ganergate, and Why? An explainer for Non-Geeks". Gawker.
• Dewey, Caitlin (October 14, 2014). "The only guide to Gamergate you will ever need to read". Washington Post.

--Elonka 14:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

We should really be trying to avoid Gawker sites only because of the fact that we're going to keep running the same line of complaints "They're tied to Kotaku, and they're involved!" But the WaPost story proves my point: it takes 3 paragraphs to even skim the surface for details. We don't have that type of space in the lead for this. What we have now is the best one sentence description on the matter. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well, clearly no one else here really thinks this is a problem. Just thought the discussion might benefit from someone unfamiliar with the topic describing the confusion she still felt (after having read, yes, THIS article), over what seems like a very basic point. valereee (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, i think everyone here acknowledges that the article is highly problematic. But much of that comes from the fact that it lacks reliable sources covering it from a perspective where it is clear what the actual context and impact is - and that wont be able to happen for several months yet as it is still "breaking" and so amorphous, except for the harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I do wish that now, while it's actually happening and people are likely to be coming here for help, we could have SOME indication of what the media are talking about when they reference "Pro-GG" or "sympathetic to" or "critical of." Clearly everyone here understands what is meant by these terms, so it just seems like at the least we could find some sort of very very basic explanation that can be agreed upon. valereee (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

"That can be agreed upon" - there's the rub! It's not that we don't think it's a problem - you're absolutely right that it is. But essentially the difficulty here is that there are no really reliable sources on what gamergate is, only on what gamergate does. We can't read the minds of every gamergater on the planet, so the best we can do is take what reliable sources are observing about them and work from there. So while we have gaters claiming that they're all about ethics, but we have outside observers noting that their ethical claims are vague and generally miss the big, obvious issues in favor of fixating on a number of female indie devs, critics and journalists. It doesn't help that we have a large amount of pressure on this page to paint gamergate in the best possible light, and give equal weight to the ever-less-believable 'ethics' angle despite the mounting evidence that it really is nothing but a mass harassment campaign, so what we're left with is a wishy-washy mess. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Taraln, LOL! Yes, that does seem to be the rub! I was thinking...if we could find in the mainstream media some descriptions of both (all) 'sides' that characterize them both as from both the positive and the negative points of view...that is, something like, "Sympathizers of Gamergate have been characterized as "(terrible people)" and "(wonderful people") and critics have been characterized as "(ditto)". valereee (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Wikipedia is a work in progess. We cannot make stuff up, even if it would be "helpful", only report on what has been published and present it as best we can reflecting the mainstream analysis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think your observation has merit, and I hope we come up with a way to better explain it to those new to the topic. What we have here is a Ms. Quinn, a female software developer in the gaming industry, an industry that is predominately male, so there's already gender-based friction there. She also works with games that aren't in a "traditional" flavor, i.e. no shooting aliens, hijacking cars, or pretend wars with pretend guns and pretend squadmates. Then her now-ex pens a blog that accuses her of infidelity with a game journalist, and a movement starts...taking that blog accusation and adding on assertions that that was the reason her games were reviewed favorably. So legions of anons start threatening her and anyone who defends her, while claiming what they're REALLY mad about is the perceived corruption of gamer journalism, and they have taken #gamergate as their rallying term. Herein is the problem; one side decries the misogynistic harassment that Quinn et all have suffered, while the other side essentially lies and says they're just arguing the ethics angle, and that the harassment is unfortunate but unconnected. It's like Obama and the birthers all over again; only the birthers saw themselves as noble patriots fighting for freedom and truth, while the rest of the universe dismissed them as loons. Tarc (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I do think that Valereee has a point, that the lead could do a better job of describing the two sides of the controversy. Perhaps we could add a couple sentences after the first sentence, that say something like, "The controversy generally resolves into two sides, involving tens of thousands of participants on social media: One side that (generally) sees GamerGate as a positive force promoting ethics in games journalism, and another side which (generally) sees GamerGate as a negative force which is using claims of conspiracy to launch misogynistic attacks at a variety of female game journalists and developers." --Elonka 16:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Elonka: That's exactly what I was thinking of -- some descriptions from reliable sources that describe gamergate both as what its most well-intentioned supporters want it to be and what its most ill-intentioned participants are using it for. 71.34.154.63 (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC) valereee (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't really change anything new in the lead though I do agree we should mention is is one driven by social media. It also perhaps simplifies the issue too many to a point that one side or the other could take offense at that. It's very difficult to make a concrete statement what it actually is without ticking someone off. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(e/c)Except there are at least four major "sides" : Those using Gamergate as cover for vile sexist harassment, those using gamergate for a set of varied and amorphous complaints about how journalism and the industry mistreat gamers, those being harassed, those appalled by the harassment (and stunned by the cluelessness of those who say that the sexist harassment is unimportant and should be ignored and what people should really care about as being important is the unfocused complaints about how gamers are mistreated by having to put up with cultural analysis of their games and culture and being classified as sexist) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD, if there are four 'sides' then we can perhaps illuminate what those four 'sides' (for want of a better word) are? valereee (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

feel free to offer suggestions, but as Masem has said, at this point, you will have a hard time finding a consensus of reliably published sources that affirmatively agree and clearly enunciate such a distinction. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD, but do we need -consensus- among reliable sources, really? If one reliable source describes GG sympathizers as 'ostensibly interested in journalistic ethics but drowned out by trolls' and another describes them as 'a hate campaign in whistleblower's clothing,' can't we simply use both sources? (I'm more concerned about gaining agreement =here= than within the mainstream media.) 71.34.154.63 (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC) valereee (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that it's not this "us vs. them" thing that people within the movement want to make it out to be. There are no "two sides". At its core, it says it wants to clear out conflicts of interest in gaming journalism, but there are also threats to people's lives that are done essentially in the name of the movement, but are being dismissed entirely as "Just something on the Internet". The people who are calling out the issues with misogyny and sexism are not saying that ethics problems do not exist. They just say that the ethics are not related to the independent developers they're attacking. And then there's arguments that the games media isn't presenting what they want to read by spending time on critical commentary on the story and its themes rather than "is the game fun". The sides are effectively "stop sending me death threats" and "hey, you should stop sending death threats" against "stop writing about things we don't want to read about" and "Five Guys".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, I'm on board with that. All I'm looking for is some clue for newbs as to, when some mainstream media article refers to someone as a 'Gamergate critic' or whatever, what they mean. That is, are they (more or less) critical or sympathetic with WHAT? valereee (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

People are either sympathetic with the desire to seek ethics in gaming media or critical of a movement that has not effectively distanced itself from members threatening to shoot women in the head for being feminists.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the "I don't care about critical commentary of the plot and symbolism, that's SJW bullshit" and the "critical commentary is more important to the survival of the medium than how fun the game is to play" fits in here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Valereee: Let me give it a shot.

Because of the leaderless, anonymous and free-form nature of Gamergate, its goals are amorphous and difficult to describe. While some supporters are interested in a discussion of journalistic ethics, many others have used the hashtag for campaigns of misogynistic harassment against prominent women in the gaming industry while still others have demanded that video game reviewers simply stop talking about issues of gender, race and class in gaming. The movement's lack of organization and inability to develop a coherent message is widely viewed as a significant reason for its public image being dominated by harassment, misogyny and violent threats. Caitlin Dewey of The Washington Post wrote that the movement has some well-meaning supporters "making some decent arguments," but they have been entirely drowned out by anonymous harassment and unproductive trolling. ""Whatever voices of reason may have existed, at some point, have been totally subsumed by the mob," she concluded.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, it's The Washington Post. Like A Tribe Called Quest.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Bah, I can never remember which newspapers use the article as part of their formal name and which don't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: That would have explained it to me. But in order to gain agreement, I would assume we'd need to find additional mainstream sources. 11:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC) valereee (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources for it, I just didn't bother inlining them here because it's just too damn fussy on a talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I figured, same here. valereee (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been saying this since the beginning, look at KnowYourMeme's entry. Right away the reader knows where and why the controversy began, and then gives a timeline, I know this isn't how Wikipedia works, but the lead should be a little more specific for regular readers. Loganmac (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't need Know Your Meme here to describe a thinly veiled hate movement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, starting from @NorthBySouthBaranof:'s shot, is this a possible starting point for gaining agreement on how to describe the most VERY BASIC various 'supporters':

Because of the leaderless, anonymous and free-form nature of Gamergate -- Caitlin Dewey of The Washington Post describes it as a “freewheeling catastrophe/social movement/misdirected lynchmob”1 -- its supporters’ goals vary.3 Some see “ethical problems among game journalists.”2 Others criticize video game reviewers for “running articles and opinion columns sympathetic to feminist critics of the industry.”2, 3 Still others -- often described as “a small, vocal minority”1,3,4 although there’s disagreement about that 4 -- are using the platform to harass prominent women in the industry.

1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/14/the-only-guide-to-gamergate-you-will-ever-need-to-read/

2 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/technology/gamergate-women-video-game-threats-anita-sarkeesian.html

3 http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/10/13/what-is-gamergate-and-how-did-it-blow-up-into-such-a-giant-conspiracy/

4 http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/09/24/349835297/-gamergate-controversy-fuels-debate-on-women-and-video-games

Again, just trying to put SOME context on it for those new to the issue. valereee (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 October 2014

Insert following section following "References":

==Further reading==

* Nick Wingfield, [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/technology/gamergate-women-video-game-threats-anita-sarkeesian.html "Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in ‘GamerGate’ Campaign,"] ''New York Times,'' Oct. 15, 2014.

Carrite (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion on how to properly incorporate what happened rather than just giving a link.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The Salt Lake Tribune

interviews Ann Berghout Austin, the Director for the Center for Women and Gender at USU. A few things that aren't covered in other sources are mentioned. Listen to it and decide what to include.

One of the threatening messages mentioned Gamergate.

link

Willhesucceed (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"Although these concerns proved unfounded"

"Although these concerns proved unfounded"

How were the allegations proven wrong by what the accused journalist himself gave as his version of the story? What kind of proof is that? Is this the Bizarro World?

All of the other papers simply quote the bit about Totilo having asked the man. Also, isn't the reputation of Totilo's website at stake? --Butter and Cream (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Every single reliable source out there has recognized that Nathan Grayson never wrote anything about Depression Quest for Kotaku after he and Zoe Quinn began their intimate relationship. Gamergaters' concerns are over the fact that the two had a personal and platonic relationship when he wrote the GAME_JAM piece and this does not make a conflict of interest. The concerns about conflicts of interest were proven to be false. This has been addressed time and time, again, on this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

They were friends long before they started their intimate relationship. You don't go from strangers to lovers in a second. Maybe the article is what got them together to begin with?

I don't see any evidence of the concerns having been proven false. Even this knowledge you get from their own statements, don't you? --Butter and Cream (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Your unsourced speculation about a person's relationship status has no place in Wikipedia. Reliable sources have reported that the allegations of a conflict of interest are meritless and that's all we care about. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's what's been proven: Nathan Grayson never wrote any positive review for any video game ever worked on by Zoe Quinn before, during, or after their romantic relationship either in his position as a writer for Kotaku or any other website he has been involved with. The concerns that are contrary to this statement are what have been proved to be unfounded. Stop speculating.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing replacement

There is likely more than enough mainstream sources that we can start going back through and replace any sources that, while perhaps RS for video games, are not as mainstream coverage; obviously we can't do them all but anywhere we can replace a gaming site with NYTimes, CBC or BBC-type quality sources that report the same thing, we're in better shape. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This would be with the articles you have decided are "neutral", yes? Basically the ones that are credulous of claims that GG are a consumer group? I would find that an objectionable attempt to slant the article. 67.138.164.67 (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes we have heard that before, however, as Forbes aptly puts it "It’s no longer possible to defend #GamerGate. For every member that unequivocally condemns these sorts of attacks against women, there’s another explaining why it’s completely unrelated from the movement, while yet another is cheering the harassers on. #GamerGate is an amalgam of a million different goals raging from the valid (better disclosure!) to the insane (death to feminists!), and it’s become bloated and grotesque with hate. Perhaps it’s too bad the sane members of the movement are caught in this tidal wave, but there’s no avoiding getting swept out to sea at this point. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

As long as the Gaming site articles are replaced with ones from actual news-reporting organisations that have a whole lot more weight behind them. Who would you believe more? Kotaku or the Guardian? --86.169.65.31 (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the biggest issue of the proGG is the corruption of VG press, the replacement of VG sources with non-VG sources that are mainstream should be seen as the right direction. (Including the fact that some are more sympathic to the proGG side). --MASEM (t) 23:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Restarting "Although these concerns proved unfounded"

Initiating user blocked as a disruptive SPA. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Although these concerns proved unfounded How were the allegations proven wrong by what the accused journalist himself gave as his version of the story? What kind of proof is that? Is this the Bizarro World? All of the other papers simply quote the bit about Totilo having asked the man. Also, isn't the reputation of Totilo's website at stake? --Butter and Cream (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Every single reliable source out there has recognized that Nathan Grayson never wrote anything about Depression Quest for Kotaku after he and Zoe Quinn began their intimate relationship. Gamergaters' concerns are over the fact that the two had a personal and platonic relationship when he wrote the GAME_JAM piece and this does not make a conflict of interest. The concerns about conflicts of interest were proven to be false. This has been addressed time and time, again, on this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC) They were friends long before they started their intimate relationship. You don't go from strangers to lovers in a second. Maybe the article is what got them together to begin with? "I don't see any evidence of the concerns having been proven false. Even this knowledge you get from their own statements, don't you? --Butter and Cream (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Your unsourced speculation about a person's relationship status has no place in Wikipedia. Reliable sources have reported that the allegations of a conflict of interest are meritless and that's all we care about. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)" Here's what's been proven: Nathan Grayson never wrote any positive review for any video game ever worked on by Zoe Quinn before, during, or after their romantic relationship either in his position as a writer for Kotaku or any other website he has been involved with. The concerns that are contrary to this statement are what have been proved to be unfounded. Stop speculating.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC) --- It's not speculation about relationships, but corruption. It's not a matter of giving a "good score", but getting the game out there to begin with. The game was made with a text-game making tool, and there are hundreds of games made with the system. Many of them are impressively large and well-made, thousandly more so than this text game we're talking about, yet they are mentioned absolutely nowhere. In addition, all you have repeated are their statements. Again, it's the defense's statements. There exist two sides, the prosecution and the defense. Both sides lie, why do you think only one does. The sentence "although these concerns proved unfounded" is unfounded. The truth is "although these concerns were claimed to be unfounded". --80.220.107.202 (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC) There is no "prosecution" and this isn't a court of law. This is anonymous rumormongers on the Internet against verifiable statements of fact made by identifiable people and organizations. Your comparison is invalid and fails entirely. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC) My intention is to change the wording. Quoting archived section: Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_9#.22Although_these_concerns_proved_unfounded.22 Although these concerns proved unfounded How were the allegations proven wrong by what the accused journalist himself gave as his version of the story? What kind of proof is that? Is this the Bizarro World? All of the other papers simply quote the bit about Totilo having asked the man. Also, isn't the reputation of Totilo's website at stake? --Butter and Cream (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Every single reliable source out there has recognized that Nathan Grayson never wrote anything about Depression Quest for Kotaku after he and Zoe Quinn began their intimate relationship. Gamergaters' concerns are over the fact that the two had a personal and platonic relationship when he wrote the GAME_JAM piece and this does not make a conflict of interest. The concerns about conflicts of interest were proven to be false. This has been addressed time and time, again, on this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC) They were friends long before they started their intimate relationship. You don't go from strangers to lovers in a second. Maybe the article is what got them together to begin with? "I don't see any evidence of the concerns having been proven false. Even this knowledge you get from their own statements, don't you? --Butter and Cream (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Your unsourced speculation about a person's relationship status has no place in Wikipedia. Reliable sources have reported that the allegations of a conflict of interest are meritless and that's all we care about. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)" Here's what's been proven: Nathan Grayson never wrote any positive review for any video game ever worked on by Zoe Quinn before, during, or after their romantic relationship either in his position as a writer for Kotaku or any other website he has been involved with. The concerns that are contrary to this statement are what have been proved to be unfounded. Stop speculating.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC) --- Quoting section abusively closed: Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Restarting_.22Although_these_concerns_proved_unfounded.22 It's not speculation about relationships, but corruption. It's not a matter of giving a "good score", but getting the game out there to begin with. The game was made with a text-game making tool, and there are hundreds of games made with the system. Many of them are impressively large and well-made, thousandly more so than this text game we're talking about, yet they are mentioned absolutely nowhere. In addition, all you have repeated are their statements. Again, it's the defense's statements. There exist two sides, the prosecution and the defense. Both sides lie, why do you think only one does. The sentence "although these concerns proved unfounded" is unfounded. The truth is "although these concerns were claimed to be unfounded". --80.220.107.202 (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC) There is no "prosecution" and this isn't a court of law. This is anonymous rumormongers on the Internet against verifiable statements of fact made by identifiable people and organizations. Your comparison is invalid and fails entirely. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC) --- This is a court of truth. The only statements you have are the statements from the accused and Totilo, the accused man's boss, whose credibility and employment is at stake. It hasn't been proven one way or another. Claiming that it has, is falsification. I am not suggesting that we change it to the prosecution's version. I am suggesting we change it to the gray, middle ground version. And Ryu, who closed the last one, are you really edit warring even on the talk page? --Butter and Cream (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Every single mainstream reliable source has accepted the rebuttal that Kotaku, Grayson, and Quinn have said about the state of their relation to the claim that Quinn has a romantic relationship with Grayson to favor positive coverage of her game. There is zero evidence Grayson wrote anything close to a review anywhere during the time they were romantically involved (this is done by checking Kotaku and RPS archives and things like Wayback machine). As such, the only statement Wikipedia can make is the one mainstream press has made: the accusation was proven wrong. There is no middle ground here from reliable sources that you claim. --MASEM (t) 04:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Mainstream sources have only reported what Totilo wrote. And there isn't need for "review score" to exist in the article. And I'm not here to prove whether it happened or not, I'm here to prove that no one proved that it absolutely didn't. There is a big difference. --Butter and Cream (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC) We aren't a court of law and we don't require "absolute" proof of anything. Reliable sources have repeatedly dismissed the allegations as unfounded if not outright falsified. Period. End of sentence. By the way, what you're asking is for negative proof, which is literally upside down and backward. The onus of proving the allegation is on the one who makes it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC) You do need absolute proof for an absolute claim. There have been no reliable sources, as the reliable sources only quote a very unreliable source. That doesn't make it reliable. --Butter and Cream (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC) You can repeat this ad nauseaum but that doesn't make it any more true. It won't be removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Would you stop closing this? The admins ought to block you. --Butter and Cream (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC) It was proven not to have occured - there simply isn't any room to move. The accusation was that Grayson provided favourable coverage about Quinn while they were in a relationship, and that this was a breach of journalistic ethics. What was proven was that Grayson did not provide any coverage regarding Quinn while they were in a relationship. Accordingly there was no ethical breach. Even Brietbart has confirmed that there was no ethical breach [28], and they aren't exactly noted as being on Quinn's side. We need to drop this - unless something solid emerges that changes things, there is no value in discussing this, and I think we're getting to a point were airing further disproved accusations about Quinn and Grayson is a WP:BLP issue and should be treated accordingly. - Bilby (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC) But it was not proven not to have occurred and Totilo. All we have are statements from the accused. They knew each other for long before they formally declared a relationship. And how is that unrelated website, Breitbart, in any way related? --Butter and Cream (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Stop using "accused".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC) You ought to get blocked for close-warring. --Butter and Cream (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC) I think this could be easily corrected by simply saying what Kotaku said - that they found no evidence that the relationship started before the article in question was written, because that's exactly what they said. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC) A synonym for an allegation with no evidence is "unfounded," and the words "unfounded," "false," "untrue" or "unsubstantiated" have been repeatedly used by reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Zoe Quinn, targeted because of disproved claims that she slept with a games journalist in return for positive coverage. That's from The Guardian, one of the most respected news organizations on the planet. Are we done here yet? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Now they resort to removing my additions. This is ridiculous. I wrote that I agreed with Titanium Dragon. Using the words the source used is the best approach. "Proven unfounded" is too much of an absolute. --Butter and Cream (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC) And that is not a Guardian article. That is an interview. The title of the interview isn't even what you wrote it to be. --Butter and Cream (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Let it go. Wikipedia is not a court of anything. Multiple sources acknowledge that there was no wrongdoing on anyone's parts. Titanium Dragon agreeing with you aside, there's no consensus to change anything on this article to say anything different about the fact that there was no conflict of interest because there was no review written by Nathan Grayson about any game that Zoe Quinn had any hand in developing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC) It is. It is a court of truth. It must uphold certain values. Multiple sources only quote Totilo. Titanium Dragon suggested we use the words the sources used. You have a problem with that? You want to rephrase how you like it? Doesn't sound very truthful to me. And again, there was an article, not a review. There doesn't need to exist a "review". --Butter and Cream (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a "court of truth". Content on Wikipedia is based on what can be verified in reliable sources and in the countless reliable sources in the article and used on the talk page to address these issues time and time again there was no conflict of interest. It's not just people quoting Stephen Totilo. There are multiple sources that have done their own investigation into the matter and have not found one review written by Nathan Grayson about anything Zoe Quinn has done. There is no review. Let it go. Let the thread, which got archived automatically, die again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Who have done their research? All you have are people quoting Totilo and Wikipedia. --Butter and Cream (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Numerous folks have noted the issues over the last couple months this article has with NPOV, and you have opposed participating in any sort of dispute resolution over the article. We should be using the factually correct and sourced to Kotaku statement that they failed to find evidence of the relationship starting before late March. Everything else is just sources playing telephone (game), which goes against WP:RS - we're supposed to avoid citing tertiary sources when we can cite the source. There is no indepdendent evidence that the accusations are false. Evidence of absence is different from absence of evidence. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC) That's because every single attempt at dispute resolution process has been started by someone just trying to forum shop when the consensus on this page isn't going their way. Kotaku has said one thing. Other people have agreed with Kotaku. Other sites have independently said the same thing as Kotaku. The accusations are false. There is no evidence to support anything else.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC) This is simply false. Consensus has been against you four for a long time, and has been pretty overwhelming; a quick look through the archive reveals that. Just because you claim there is consensus doesn't mean that there is, in fact, consensus on the issue. Indeed, as I noted in the DRN, the sources do not support your point of view; it is a highly contentious issue, and you merely advocate for one point of view. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Consensus hasn't been against us because we're established editors in good standing explaining how the content of the article does in fact meet all of the policies and guidelines when fifty new accounts all spouting the same Gamergate garbage come up to say otherwise. The sources support the neutral point of view that the article has. Anything else is "us vs. them" Gamergater rhetoric that has no place on Wikipedia or in the discussions on the subject.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Concensus hasn't been reached against you because there has never been concensus. You have just forced your way with edit wars, haven't you? People have given up against you. --Butter and Cream (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC) I think your ideology is blinding you. You don't get to make unfounded accusations that the other reliable sources are wrong or that they haven't done independent research. You have zero evidence for your claim and are demanding that we reject the word of some of the largest news organizations on the planet. That's a conspiracy theory and it has no place here. Put up or shut up — either you have evidence that The Guardian is playing "telephone" or you're just throwing shit at the wall and hoping it sticks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC) What other reliable sources? Again, all of them quote Kotaku, Totilo (Kotaku's chief) and Wikipedia (which doesn't quote Kotaku). --Butter and Cream (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC) No, actually, it is a Guardian article. The article interviews a person, but the quoted statement regarding the claims being disproved is made by the article's author, a Guardian journalist. This issue's been settled and there's not really anything further to discuss. Have a nice night. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC) The Guardian is merely sourcing Kotaku, which used different language. Per WP:RS we should be citing Kotaku inline here on this. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Maybe not even Kotaku, maybe even this Wikipedia article. --Butter and Cream (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Kotaku is cited inline as are fifty other websites saying the same thing. Multiple websites agree with Totilo's investigation that there was no conflict of interest which means the accusations were proven to be unfounded. You don't get to pedantically argue that anything else has happened.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC) All they do is quote Kotaku, Totilo (Kotaku's chief) and Wikipedia (which doesn't quote Kotaku). --Butter and Cream (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC) What proof do you have that they're quoting us? What proof do you have of anything you're claiming? Stop trying to find excuses. Take off your tinfoil hat. Put away the Kool-Aid. Give proof that what has been written in that article and what is presently included in this article is wrong rather than just semantically inaccurate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Again, you're quoting an interview, in which amongst a large paragraph of words, the writer casually, in midst of a sentence, refers to the incident as disproven. And the word disproven sounds like it was picked off from the "unproven" used on this Wikipedia article. --Butter and Cream (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC) So your evidence is that the word "disproven" and "unproven" sound similar? I feel like the words "This is what Gamergaters actually believe" should be blinking on a screen in front of me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Er, uh, no. They don't. The linked Guardian article does not source or mention Kotaku and has one link to Wikipedia, for the definition of "false flag." You're both at the point of just literally making shit up because your movement is that fucked. You can't comprehend that you're wrong and that reliable sources have repeatedly told you that you're wrong. Step away from r/KotakuInAction and 8chan and enter the real world where people put their names on what they publish. You can't find anyone reliable who is willing to uncritically repeat the bullshit because it's false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC) True, because it offers zero sources. Because of that, the source is likely Wikipedia. And it's but a mention in midst of a mass of words. --Butter and Cream (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC) And North, they don't say they read it from Wikipedia. That's the core of using Wikipedia as a source. And please don't paint me as your boogeymen. --Butter and Cream (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Put up or shut up. Give us the proof of Wikipedia being used as a source on that article or just give up already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC) They are the god damn source. Stop crying "media bias" like everyone else has before you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC) You wrote you have 50 sources. Yet now your only source is a side mention in midst of an interview. Which likely is quoting Wikipedia. --Butter and Cream (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Read our god damn article. Go through all the sources. Go see every single instance of people agreeing with Totilo's determination as well as other reporters investigating into the same things without the inside information that Totilo has access to that shows that there was no review to elicit a conflict of interest.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Again, there needn't be a review, with a "review score". There was an article. They knew each other long before they were officially in a relationship. You have no sources but quotes of Kotaku and that Guardian interview which offers no sources. --Butter and Cream (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC) So as I've encountered before, you're just moving the goal posts. When you can't use the evidence that they were in a sexual relationship with each other to result in a positive review of her game, you use the fact that they platonically knew each other when Grayson wrote the GAME_JAM piece where Quinn is quoted heavily about wanting to make her own game jam without actually going "Go donate to her here". That's not a conflict of interest. As has been stated time and time again by journalists not in the video game industry, journalists personaly know the people they cover so they can properly cover the topics they are involved with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC) I am moving the goal posts? I have not once mentioned "sex". You bring that up like a straw man. --Butter and Cream (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Those early allegations are the whole point of everything. Gamergaters wanted to accuse Quinn of having had a sexual relationship with Grayson which resulted in a positive review for her game. When it was disproven that there was no professional impropriety on anyone's behalf when the relationship was confirmed to have existed, suddenly they changed to "positive coverage" which is vague as hell.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC) You're arguing that because boogeymen exist, I am wrong. Blame them, not my argument. I've been away for a while anyways. --Butter and Cream (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC) No, I'm disproving your argument because I'm aware of the history of the subject that led to the reason you're arguing in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Isn't that what I just wrote? --Butter and Cream (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC) This is simply false. Kotaku itself noted three original claims: that she and Grayson had been in a relationship at the time of the publication of his article about GAME_JAM, that Grayson had given Quinn positive coverage in exchange for sex, and that Grayson had written a positive article about Zoe Quinn's game Depression Quest while they were in a relationship. The last was false, but it also was, as far as anyone can tell, the last of the three accusations to appear, and is likely a result of people playing telephone (game) on the internet. The first two Kotaku was unable to find evidence of because it was a private relationship which was kept secret at the time because Quinn already had a boyfriend; thus, the only people who know for sure are Quinn and Grayson, and both unsurprisingly deny any impropriety. We have no idea if those are true or false; we cannot prove or disprove them, as there is an absence of evidence; however, there is not evidence of absence. We should state that the review thing is false (if we mention it at all) while the positive press/relationship at the time stuff should be noted to have no evidence for them. Have you not read any sources on this? Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Are you reading the same thing that I have?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Exactly. After listing the above accusations, Totilo states "our leadership team finds no compelling evidence that any of that is true" [emphasis mine]. That being said, I'm actually okay with removing "unfounded". Perhaps "wholly without merit" instead? Or, if some editors would prefer a legal-sounding response, "the prosecution failed to present any evidence for their claims". Woodroar (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC) The Guardian calls them "disproved." So that works too, in the universe of reality. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC) There is actually a subtle diff; "unfounded" is a claim not only disproven but where there is no apparent evidence for it, which as some sources have noted, there is zero reviews of DQ by Grayson at all, despite this being a specific part of the claim. It is used by some sources to point out how they see ProGG siude working on a conspiracy theory basis, which they argue immediately makes it hard to take them seriously (ala Ryulongs example of Obama birthers). --MASEM (t) 07:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC) I never used the birther analogy. I've been using the Jonestown analogies.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Your argument is literally "They don't say they read it from Wikipedia, therefore their source must be Wikipedia." <boggle> You are an Underpants Gnome. That's the only explanation. And GamerGaters wonder why literally nobody takes them seriously. Logic, how does it fucking work. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC) No, it's not. The word that was used is similar to the one used on the Wiki article. --Butter and Cream (talk) 06:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC) I bet they also both use the words "Quinn," "GamerGate" and "the." INDISPUTABLE PROOF OF COLLUSION. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Is a straw man the best you got? A slippery slope straw man? --Butter and Cream (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC) This is because there are only so many ways to say it was not proven. It is not proof that they're cribbing from Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Why does the article only mention one guy Quinn allegedly had a relationship with

I'm sure the claim was there were five of them, maybe I missed it, but I think in that case it should be made more clear.Halfhat (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning any of the other allegations would be a BLP violation - it is only the one with Grayson that has recieved attention as being proven false, that means that we have to include it to complete the others. Any of the other ex's allegations are unnecessary in the scope of GG and fail BLP as our RS's do not address these others. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Here are some sources: [29] [30] [31] [32].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Not enough, really. They mention the allegations alongside the main one but do no attempt to discredit or the like. As such, that's gossip that flat out fails BLP. (The only thing that might be necessary, and I am very much against including it unless it needs to be, is the mention of the certain chain in association with the allegations as shorthand for the situation, but that's not really used alot around. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wilipedia is not in charge of policing peoples sexual activity on behalf of creeps. Artw (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

More evidence that GamerGate isn't about Zoe Quinn except for all the GamerGate people who want us to republish all the details of Zoe Quinn's personal life. Thank you for helping demonstrate why reliable sources treat GamerGate as a fount of misogynistic harassment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

From my perspective, the issue here is that we are misleading readers by characterizing it as though she simply was with another guy, with some editors even wanting to downplay the cheating aspect, and her boyfriend went on a tirade against her sparking off a wave of misogynistic harassment. According to Gjoni, the problem is that she cheated on him with multiple men. There is actually even more to it than that, but the reliable sources only talk about the cheating on him with multiple men part. You can guffaw about how this proves it is all totally about Quinn, but it is really about the narrative. It is well-recognized that Gjoni's post was a big part of what sparked this off and it is also well-recognized that many media are using their characterization of that post and Gjoni to perpetuate a certain narrative regarding GamerGate. Not suggesting we go on about all the dirty details, but I think simply noting the allegations concerned cheating and concerned more than one incidence of cheating is an important bit of context. It does give you a little insight into why Gjoni might have been a tad upset. Again there is more to it than just cheating, but that is what we have from reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We need to move off that fact, because it wasn't Gjoni's initial accusation, but the ones that extrapolated that to professional impropriety and that is the only accusation that is significant to GG. We are not here to even question Quinn's personal life choices at all, and it would be BLP to go into that further than the fact that the ex felt jaded enough to announce her relationship with Grayson. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so if nothing Gjoni said was relevant then I say we remove all of Marcotte's insinuations about him, the New York Times characterization of his blog post, and any other references to Quinn's "personal life" and focus only on what people inferred from his blog post with nary a mention of what he actually said. Editors cannot have it both ways and still be in accord with NPOV. We can't avoid mentioning the allegation of Quinn cheating on Gjoni with multiple guys on the basis of it being irrelevant despite getting mentioned in numerous reliable sources and simultaneously weaponize his blog post against GamerGate without being at odds with policy.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with this - this should not be about anything about their past relation (outside they used to have one). To be clear, this is not for removal of the stuff about Depression Quest and the harassment she got for that beforehand (that establishes that she was a "target" before the accusation), but any other personal life stuff about Quinn that is extraneous from the issues of GG and her subsequent harassment should be removed. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

TDA: Can I ask what parts of "Quinn's personal life" you are seeing in the article that shoudl be removed? I'm not sure what you mean (or if you are just saying we shouldn't care to have them even) --MASEM (t) 20:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

So basically, the material in question would be the following:

Amanda Marcotte in an article for The Daily Beast described the controversy as arising from the comments of a "vindictive ex-boyfriend", stated it was "pure misogyny to use online harassment troops" against Quinn . . .

. . . noting that its origin was attacks on Zoe Quinn concerning her personal life.

This post, which The New York Times described as a "strange, rambling attack," . . .

In fact, if Gjoni is so irrelevant to this subject that we cannot mention the allegation of Quinn cheating on him, let alone with multiple guys, then the only mention of him should be when mentioning him putting up the blog post, rather than referring to the controversy in terms of "Gjoni's accusations" or "Gjoni's blog entry" at other points in the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

So again you are stating that this whole gamergate thing is because allegations of Quinn's sex life being more interesting than all of the basement dwelling gamergaters could possible hope to ever experience? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That is just being childish. Come on man calm down. You're just being prejudiced. We're not here to argue about the merits, or lack there of, of GamerGate. We're here to make a good article covering the drama. Halfhat (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

When the gamergaters start showing actual adult interest in actual conflict of interest and not on childish prurient "drahmaz" over wild and meaningless allegations of other peoples sex lives as rationale for harassment and stop flooding this talk page with fixation of the same, then there may be reason to treat the comments here as anything other than childish lashing out by sexually repressed basement dwellers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Like most origin stories, it is important and it is only natural that it be discussed. As I told Masem, if we are not going to note what many reliable sources note about Gjoni's accusations, then we cannot be using other people's characterizations of him or the blog post and still remain in accord with NPOV.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That is hardly what I am saying and it is definitely not my position. We cannot be right with NPOV if we are saying the blog post can be used against GamerGate without us being clear about what the post concerned. If the position here is that we have to ignore numerous reliable sources noting the allegations concerned cheating because his allegations are irrelevant, then what people think of Gjoni and the blog post is also irrelevant since their thoughts are premised on his allegations. My default position would be to keep the stuff about Gjoni and the blog post being evidence of "vindictive" behavior and misogyny, but note the blog post concerned Quinn allegedly cheating on Gjoni with multiple men. Both details are backed by numerous reliable sources, but if we are saying the latter detail cannot be included, then the former detail is no better for inclusion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we don't have a lot of RS on what else was accused in that post so that's why per BLP reducing the "important" of the blog post should be done so that it is simply "he accused her, others jumped on that". --MASEM (t) 00:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but mentioning other people is not a violation of anyone's personal lives as these people worked either with press and gaming community as well. --Artman40 (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a BLP violation to make a claim about the relationships, however, even if the names are recognized people. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because someone works in the "press and gaming community" does not make their personal lives a subject of Wikipedia interest, and it doesn't change our reliable sourcing requirements. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

At least the article should mention that the press does not comment on those other people. It would be hypocritical to only include Grayson. It would be like saying that the person is innocent when committing 4 crimes, being charged with 5 and finding 1 of the crimes baseless. --Artman40 (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No. There is zero public interest in any allegations made in an ex-boyfriend's "strange, rambling attack." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There IS public interest. By the way, Kotaku, Destructoid and other sites are accused on harming journalistic integrity and therefore count as primary sources. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/09/09/GamerGate-Why-Gaming-Journalists-Keep-Dragging-Zoe-Quinns-Sex-Life-into-the-Spotlight --Artman40 (talk) 11:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart is not an acceptable reliable source, and your claim that sites "accused on harming journalistic integrity" (huh?) become primary sources is utterly nonsensical. No, they don't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Excactly why aren't Breitbart, Nichegamer and Techraptor reliable sources and why is Cracked a preferred source to Forbes? --Artman40 (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Cracked is not used on this article. It may be used at Zoe Quinn because it's a piece she wrote about herself, but nothing else from Cracked is being used anywhere on Wikipedia. Breitbart has an established history of blatantly lying, taking things out of context, and other instances of a complete lack of journalistic integrity to even be close to be considered a reliable source. The only reason the gaters have latched onto it is because Milo Yiannopoulos and Gamergate supporters have a lot in common. I don't know what Nichegamer or Techraptor have said on these matters, but the issue at hand here is that in the context of what Gamergate wants itself to be about, there is only one personal relationship out of all of Eric Gjoni's allegations that the latched onto and wanted to expose and that was the relationship with Grayson rather than anyone else Gjoni rambled on about.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

With that logic, we can say that Kotaku, Polygon, RockPaperShotgun and other alleged sites want the context of Gamergate to be about misogyny despite GamerGate not being about misogyny. --Artman40 (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not what people are saying here or on this article. Again, people acknowledge across the board that Gamergate wants to be about journalistic integrity, but they note that there is a misogynistic streak in the actions perpetrated under the name of Gamergate. This has been picked up outside of the gaming websites, where as the pro-gamergate rhetoric only comes from these fringe and completely unreliable sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Show me a reliable source that is claiming Gamergate has misogynistic streaks and actually has proof tying those people back to Gamergate, most of the "reliable" sources I've seen say that Gamergate is misogynistic but have no proof to back up the statement. Now, if you are able to link me to an article saying as such, why is this movement being defined so heavily by its outliers? Nathan905RB (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There are extensive sources that say that the Gamergate movement is misogynistic ([33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], I could go on, but these are all in the artcle) because of the unnecessary focus on the women involved rather than any equally as culpable men. And it's defined so heavily by its "outliers" in your definition because there is no centralized movement. There is no central voice for Gamergate. There are misogynist trolls within Gamergate just as much as there could theoretically be a black lesbian transwoman who wants there to be more transparency in video games media and who doesn't care about the cultural criticism of games and just wants to know how many arbitrary points out of 10 the game received. It doesn't matter what every singular person can claim the movement is. Because there's no representative of the whole, it can only be examined from afar, and people see three women forced from their homes due to their addresses being published online against their will, an unnecessary obsession with who slept with who and when, as well as spending all of their time and energy going after people selling their games for $20 on Steam and Humble Bundle rather than the AAA publishers who have the means to actually get people fired over advertising campaigns or any other several hundred dollar drop in the bucket for a company who makes $1 billion on release day on a single title.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There are "extensive sources" that say it (in some cases, if you squint just the right way), but where do they demonstrate it? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources need not demonstrate anything. We are not in the business of independently fact checking unless other reliable sources say otherwise.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS Brianna Wu interview Re: GamerGate

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/gamergate-leads-death-threats-women-gaming-industry/

I just saw this on TV tonight. Maybe usable. Maybe just reiterative. You be the judge. -Thibbs (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Harassment of trans and queer game developers

The cover story of this week's East Bay Express is about Gamergate.[41] It's a pretty long and detailed piece. Interestingly, it includes discussion of a topic not mentioned in our current article: harassment of trans and queer game developers. It might be worth integrating some mention of this issue into our current article. Kaldari (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

“ Recently, Anthropy and a few other self-publishing game designers and writers have begun making their rent via a platform called Patreon. ”

“ Gamers accused [Jenn Frank] of being biased because she contributes to Quinn's Patreon account ... details that she had initially disclosed in a footnote in her piece but were taken out by Guardian editors ”

“ a video game reporter named Patricia Hernandez was called out online for not fully disclosing that she was friends and former roommates with Anthropy despite having written about her work multiple times for the online video game publication Kotaku ”

“ other accusations were being hurled at journalist Ben Kuchera claiming that he had an undisclosed conflict of interest when he reviewed Quinn's Depression Quest in March for the online publication Polygon because he contributes to her Patreon account. ”

Let's finally talk about Patreon, shall we? Link to other sources in the archive. Also Reason. Gamergate's discovering Patricia Hernandez's conduct seems noteworthy. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's been a major part of discourse. How briefly can we summarize it? Halfhat (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Willhesucceed: the East Bay Express article downplays those quoted examples, though, even including this rebuttal:

Polygon editor Christopher Grant, meanwhile, published a blogpost reminding readers that "like Kickstarter, these contributions aren't investments. There is no equity to be gained, there is no market to capitalize on."

And at the same time they are contrasted with the

common practice for big-budget video game companies to wine and dine press at fancy events and give away free products like new game consoles.

So I'm not sure it's as damning as you would make it appear. Multiple editors above had also expressed concern with using Reason for BLP statements, which would include Patreon or any ethics claims about journalists. Woodroar (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether it's damning or not, it's noteworthy. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's noteworthy, but you're putting the emphasis in the wrong place. The pull quotes you mentioned are given as examples of minor ethics violations, and they are contrasted with major ethics violations of the AAA title developers. We could say something like this: Sarah Burke of East Bay Express mentioned often-cited concerns within the GamerGate movement, such as a reporter being "friends and former roommates" with a developer, or donations from reporters to developers via Patreon accounts. Burke contrasts this with the "common practice for big-budget video game companies to wine and dine press at fancy events and give away free products like new game consoles" in order to influence positive reviews, a concern which GamerGate has not expressed. Just a thought. Woodroar (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

2 Time Articles

http://time.com/3510381/gamergate-faq/ Willhesucceed (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

http://time.com/3512862/fixing-gamergate/

"The university deemed the presentation safe to proceed after consulting with local law enforcement" Noteworthy, I think. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• • uhhh noteworthy because ... Sarkeesian 's decision not to appear shows that shes a chicken shit girl, a real man would have showed up and brought his own gun? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems this harassment has gone on for three days now. Odd how few have noticed.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a section on media polarization on the issues?

from the Guardian criticizing the recent NYtimes article for, all purposes, giving the GG the time of day. Opinions aside, there perhaps might be enough to talk about how the coverage of GG in mainstream has led to some issues (an extension of the "Death of games"-type of thing) in terms of swinging the matter. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

lol the Guardian thinks media is biased towards GamerGate. At this point this article it's just impossible to get neutral. And I admire your efforts Masem. But it's like the Wikileaks/Snowden/Julian Assange page were 80% mentions of them being terrorists and traitors. A movement about journalism corruption is bound to be misrepresented by media Loganmac (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

lol ahhh the conspiracy of the media. do you have enough tin foil for your hats? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Why thank you I got my collection of tin foil hats ready sir, you're absolutely right, the media doesn't get defensive when a movement attacks them, they're just pure and neutral as it gets! Loganmac (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That is hardly a conspiracy theory. News media are not keen on reporting fairly about criticism of themselves. I think it is quite possible to keep this article neutral even with that being a factor, but it will only happen if both sides in this content dispute are willing to be reasonable. Unfortunately, only one side is showing a desire for neutrality.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it's not even a conspiracy it's just getting defensive. Yeah definitely add this, it's a decent source, and will help get this a bit more neutralHalfhat (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I propose these changes to the second and third paragraph

I tried to make this less emotive, removed some redundancy, removed a couple parts that implied small pieces of unsourced information and tried to make it flow better.

The controversy came to wider attention due to the sustained harassment indie game developer Zoe Quinn was subjected to after an ex-boyfriend posted numerous allegations on his blog in August 2014, including that she had "romantic relationship[s]"[7] with members of the gaming media which prompted concerns that the relationship led to positive media coverage for her game. Although the concerns of at least one of these proved unfounded,[8][a] allegations about journalistic ethics continued to clash with allegations of harassment and misogyny.[10] The rising popularity of the medium, and greater emphasis on games as a potential art form, has led to a commensurate focus on social criticism within gaming media and indie works.[9][12][13] This shift has prompted opposition from more traditional "hardcore" gamers who view games purely as a form of entertainment.[6][9][12][14] Other topics of debate have included perceived changes or threats to the "gamer" identity as a result of the ongoing changes to the gaming industry.[2][3][4][5]

Allegations of impropriety in gaming media have prompted policy changes at several outlets, and commentators generally agree that systemic problems in the gaming media need to be discussed; however, the harassment and misogyny associated with GamerGate is seen as having poisoned the well.[10][12][15] Furthermore, the focus of the movement on a heretofore relatively obscure independent developer rather than AAA publishers has led to questions about its motivations.[14][15]

Halfhat (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The allegations which have been widely reported in reliable sources (which are the only ones we care about) have been shown to be false, and we have no interest in any of the others. You've also removed extensive discussion of the threats against Quinn and others and how they are seen as being responsible for the fact that mainstream sources have focused on the movement's misogynistic, harassing and trolling elements. Those parts of your proposal are not acceptable.

We can get rid of the word "allegations" before harassment, though — it's well-sourced in reliable sources that such harassment has happened. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

as per NorthBySouthBaranof. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Would discussion did I remove? It was just repetition. Halfhat (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The lead paragraph should be a succinct and thorough summary of the article. There's nothing in the first paragraph about the harassment campaign that counts as repetition.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What sourced facts have I missed out?Halfhat (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not "just repetition" and you didn't address the issue of raising unsourced and irrelevant claims about Zoe Quinn. You won't get any consensus for that version. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What sourced facts did I miss? Halfhat (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Look If I've actually missed out sourced information say what I've actually missed out. Halfhat (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

BBC article on Twitter, Gamergate and even a short comment on our article

I don't know if someone already linked this (if so, I missed it) but the BBC is running an article on the background issues complete with a link to our article which they describe as "what looks like a factual account". Link. CIreland (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"looks like a factual account" ... *anguished Wookiee cry*

This is the fourth? fifth? sixth? article to now focus on internet culture as it relates to the controversy. It deserves inclusion. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is better than I expected, it has a lot of flaws and some neutrality issues, but this is a very hard topic to cover. Halfhat (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The Independant published an article on GamerGate

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/gaming/gamergate-personal-attacks-and-threats-have-to-stop-say-e3-organisers-9798264.html

I thinks E3 organizer's comments warrant mention. And some other opinions. Halfhat (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

GameJournoPros

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

---

Not a single mention of this on the page, despite all these sources.

Pocketgamer, China Topix, tportal, Bright Side, Ars Technica, Forbes, bitgamer, recode, Erik Kain and other industry members

NorthBySouthBaranof previously claimed Chinatopix got "basic facts" wrong and should be excluded on that basis, but the coverage is a valid interpretation of events, they just haven't been reported by other places. You can double-check for yourself. Just because a publication approaches a topic from another perspective, as most of the Asian sources do, doesn't mean it's disallowable, especially when used in conjunction with other sources to note only those things relevant to the topic.

Let's decide what should be included and what shouldn't. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with GameJournoPros is that this borders on BLP (it is an unfounded claim/inference about the actions of known living persons, something I checked on at BLP/N and was told better to leave this out). It's contribution to the overall GG story is very minor since I see little of the present proGG stuff pointing to that to say that is an ethics problem. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP problems can't be solved by phrasing it as perception? Diego below says there was no agreement on the issue of whether it should be omitted from the article. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

GameJournoPros is not a person. If it violates BLP to talk about it, then why doesn't it also violate BLP to accuse Gamergate of wide, sweeping claims of harassment and terrorism? Ridiculous. 72.89.93.231 (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The specific people who contributed to the list are living people, and making unfounded, poorly-sourced accusations about them or their behavior does violate BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering that there's little attempt to keep this page neutral despite the token cries for neutrality, I sadly doubt that these multiple sources will amount to anything at all. This page is already infamous for its partiality, and is obviously one of the bigger battlegrounds of the whole thing. Especially considering pro-GG sources are constantly questioned where as long as the anti side doesn't link Gawker or something it is accepted readily.Tupin (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The list was included at the article at one point, and was later removed because one editor opposed it based on the sources available then. Now that we have more independent reliable sources covering it, it should be included again. As for Masem's query at the BLP noticeboard, there was one editor commenting that it shouldn't be included, and other thinking that it could, so it doesn't set any precedent. Diego (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Your memory is faulty. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. You may want to read what I wrote instead of making personal attacks. Diego (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You said that there was 'one editor commenting that it shouldn't be included.' I see a lot more than one editor in that section expressing concerns about including breitbart.com's accusations. Your statement that only one editor opposed its inclusion is patently false. The sourcing for is also still weak, just as it was then: we don't seem to have any independant investigation, only a few minor industry outlets reporting on the accusations published on a site that is best known for publishing outright lies. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I said that there was 'one editor commenting that it shouldn't be included' in Masem's query at the BLP noticeboard. The only editor at that board against inclusion is User:John; meanwhile, User:Stuartyeates thought that it could be published if it's covered in independent reliable sources. Please consider asking for clarification when you don't understand why a comment has been made, before resorting to insulting fellow editors. Diego (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I see, I quoted the wrong section of your post: you said the information "was later removed because one editor opposed it based on the sources available then." That's not true, and saying so minimizes the past opposition to this information's inclusion. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As mandated by WP:DUE, it deserves a place in the article. Tutelary (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No actual collusion actually took place, this is a thoroughly debunked meme. There's no need to repeat every scurrilous and half-baked cover story the "pro-GG" people have concocted to cover their misdeeds here. Tarc (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The collusion has never been fully debunked (but that's not saying it is true either), and for that reason, as simply a claim of it, we should really not include as per the BLPN discussion even if we could. If it was dunked, then inclusion should be apparent, just like the allegation against Quinn. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There are various ways to cover this in a BLP-safe way. We have several reliable sources noting that the leak of mails happened, and that it led to several proGGs to consider it as an explanation of the early "media radio-silence", and to Kyle Orland to publish an explanation at Ars Technica. Diego (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it has been fully debunked. A wild accusation was made, a person quite rationally explained that, no, this is what the e-mail list is really for, and the accuser and associated unreliable sourced that initially mirrored it went silent. This is a dead-end issue. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If there are multiple high quality reliable secondary sources which present the content, then it can be added according to due weight. It would certainly help if someone interested in adding the content would highlight which are the 2-3 highest quality sources, along with excerpts covering the issue. aprock (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is there aren't. We have a few articles which are relatively low-quality sources, and they're all reporting on accusations which have gotten no real traction and which originate from a media outlet best known for making things up to attempt to discredit political opponents. We need much, much stronger sources which we can rely on to evaluate the situation properly and give it exactly the credit it deserves before we give Breitbart.com's accusations a place in Wikipedia. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

So, you consider an article published under the auspices of Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher to be a low quality source? Diego (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I consider the sourcing we have here too weak to justify mentioning these accusations in the article, yes. You'll not that that is only a source for the fact that the accusations were made: it doesn't in any way indicate that they have any merit. I'm not doubting that Milo made unfounded accusations - I know he did - what I'm saying is that by including them here when they've been given only cursory attention by reliable sources we would be violating WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. We have decent sources for the fact that Milo made an unfounded accusation, but we have very, very weak sources that support the notion that these accusations are noteworthy enough to merit inclusion. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Please inform us of something that is not clear from your interventions: what level of sourcing would make you accept that this incident has strong enough sources for including it? Because I definitely want to apply that very same criteria to the numerous opinions currently included in the article. Diego (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

High profile mainstream sourcing is going to garner the most support; Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The National Review, LA Times, New York Times, etc. Of the sources listed above, only the Forbes one seems likely to gather broad support. Again, it's not about something being clear or WP:TRUE, it's about gathering consensus for inclusion. If you use niche publications that editors have never heard of, then the likelihood they are going be widely supported it as a source is fairly low, especially for anything which approaches WP:BLP requirements. For better or worse, that's how wikipedia works. aprock (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I should add that it is very rare for opinion pieces to be considered reliable for much beyond the authors own personal opinion (see WP:OPINION). As such, they should almost always be avoided in controversial articles like this one. aprock (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

One last note, the above sourcing guidelines relate to inclusion of a topic as per WP:DUE weight. Once something has been deemed of sufficient weight for inclusion (based on high quality mainstream sourcing), then other less high profile sources can be used, guided by WP:DUE weight as determined by the high quality sources. Said another way, Kotaku can't be used to establish enough weight for inclusion, but if the New York Times makes reference to a Kotaku article, then it can be used as a citation. aprock (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That leads me to conclude what other editors have already commented at this talk page, that the amount of personal opinions currently appearing in the article have been given undue weight and should be reduced.

As of now, we're giving any op-ed by a particular journalist the same weight that we give to main events, which does not make for a balanced article. The article should give more emphasis to the events that have been reflected at several independent venues, and less to the commentary on those events by single journalists in their opinion columns; unless one particular opinion has been itself collected by other media and identified as significant by other independent sources, it should be taken elsewhere. Diego (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You hit in on the nose. There are sections that are just "here's some opinions", and because opinions are going to be extensively available from one side and not from the other by the nature of this controversy, this simply is overkill on getting the point across. "GG is seen as a bad thing by numerous people" is necessary and unavoidable to state, but not to the degree that the point is hammered over and over. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As I'm an unrepentant inclusionist, I'm not fond of completely removing content that is sourced to reliable sources; I usually prefer to find it a better place when it's deemed irrelevant to a particular topic. I was thinking that it's time to WP:SPLIT this already long article upon the axis of factual vs opinion, creating Reactions to GamerGate. I think there are enough sources describing the nature of those reactions to make that subtopic a notable one, where those single-person opinions would actually be on-topic and not too much detail, in the way they're too detailed for this main article now. The current article could be made into a timeline of sourced facts and highly influential reactions (like those by Alexander or maybe Hoff Sommers, which have other journalists commenting on them), which IMHO would be much more neutral. This would also leave place at the main article to grow from the more in-depth, long-term analysis of the significance of the whole incident that are likely to happen in the future, without requiring us to delete the current content. What do you think? Diego (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

We do not need to fork anything off like this just to "eliminate the bias" on this article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the beginning attempt at a WP:POVFORK. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition, "Reaciton to" articles are WP:QUOTEFARMs, and not appropriate encyclopedic material. --MASEM (t) 21:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing undue comments it is, then. Diego (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a BLP issue to talk about a mailing list. We have multiple reliable sources discussing this and it only seems apt to include a mention of it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As above, which are the 2-3 most reliable mainstream sources mentioning it? If none (or one) are, then it's difficult to see how it should be included. aprock (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe Pocketgamer, Re/code, and Forbes are the best sources in the mix.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Of those, only the Forbes one appears to be a mainstream source, and even that is a "Games" column. As it only deals with the email list, it's hard to use it to establish due weight. Based on those sources, it's hard to see covering the topic in any sort of detail. aprock (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Re/code is also fairly mainstream, it's been founded by the main technology journalists of The Wall Street Journal and All Things Digital, financed by NBCUniversal, and quoted by Reuters, Time, MacWorld, NBCNews and many international outlets (El Pais, CNET, Europa Press, TeleCinco... I quote major Spanish outlets because those appear at my Google News search, but I'm sure other languages will quote Re/code too). They don't come any better in terms of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Diego (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"Some games journalists discussed, among other things, GamerGate, on a private mailing list." That's a mention. It doesn't say much, but that's about all there is to say about it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Then say just that. It's been given more weight in RSs than some of the opinions already in the article. Diego (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If we can get a consensus to add it, let's do it. The article's hard-protected right now or I would have done it myself. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional mentions in Mother Jones and Vox, as well as a response from James Fudges at GamePolitics.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

WhatCulture considers it the 5th biggest achievement of GamerGate http://whatculture.com/gaming/10-biggest-victories-gamergate-achieved-far.php/5 who are we kidding now that this isn't relevant? Loganmac (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2014 (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.

Wikileaks acknowledges GamerGate

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

---

I know this is primary source and twitter, but as a enourmous notable organization can this get a mention?

"Journalistic organisation WikiLeaks recognized GamerGate 'found out [their] media is corrupt'" [42] Or something like that? Loganmac (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't see a problem if it is posted as an opinion, it's a verified account. I'm just a n00b though. If you want a secondary source what about this? http://www.newstatesman.com/media-mole/2014/09/wikileaks-wades-gamergate-says-nato-corrupt-video-games-journalism Halfhat (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Edit: It doesn't refer to that tweet in particular but does show the same sort of position.Halfhat (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hasn't the results of the AMA been constantly thrown out because of the wispy washy nature of the question posed and the answer given? I don't see why we need to mention that the website backs them up in any fashion when it solely revolves around the claims of censorship happening when people are getting banned for violations the terms of services of the forums where they are claiming it is happening.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw that, and read through the linked article, and found zero mention of GG. We're not going off one tweet to say there's support. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

WhatCulture mentions that "Wikileaks commented on their twitter" about reddit "stiffling the discussion of the GamerGate scandal" in an article about the biggest victories of GamerGate http://whatculture.com/gaming/10-biggest-victories-gamergate-achieved-far.php/10 Loganmac (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm hard pressed to see WhatCulture as a significant source. On the plus side, that was very funny. Well, the few pages I could see before the site seemed to die, anyway. - Bilby (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

WhatCulture is definitely not reliable, it's more a clickbait site. They might express points that could be discovered in other sources, but we can't use them directly. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 17 October 2014 (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.

Is 'Gamergate controversy' the best title here?

OK, I realise this suggestion would be an uphill struggle. But I'm starting to wonder if 'GamerGate controversy' is the most appropriate title for this article. True, 'GamerGate' is probably the most common description of this kerfuffle, if only because it's short and pithy. But that doesn't mean we should use it ourselves. Using the hashtag catchphrase of an activist group for an article about a broader issue is implicitly endorsing that group's position on that issue. (That is to say: using the name 'GamerGate' for this article implicitly endorses the view of one side that it's really all about criticism of 'gamers' as a group.) Yes, some articles are titled after hashtags, but only when the article is actually about the hashtag campaign, whereas the subject of this one has grown into something broader.

By analogy to a previous case: there was another big Internet controversy a few years ago which one group of activists called 'Climategate'. But even if that may have been the most widely used nickname, our article on the subject is not called that, but rightly goes by the more neutral and descriptive title Climatic Research Unit email controversy. I'm thinking we should do something similar here.

I don't know what the best alternative name would be; my personal preference would be for something like 2014 harassment of women in gaming controversy, but I recognise that may also have neutrality issues. I'm open to better suggestions. Robofish (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME - Gamergate is the right word on that alone; in contrast to "Climategate", which bore out as the issues expanded, it was GamerGate from the start for all practical purposes. And keep in mind that it is the proGG that promoted that term even though I would argue it is a negative connotation by just name alone towards them (in that "X-gate" implies a todo over X"). --MASEM (t) 23:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much, I think the initial title was Quinnspiracy, and then it branched out and became GamerGate.Halfhat (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Your suggested title has couple of problems. Firstly it'd cover a whole lot that GamerGate does not, and it ignores the whole journalism side. Ignoring that, GamerGate is what people will look up, it's what it's called. The problem is GamerGate is very hard to define, it does include harassment, but also more sincere concerns. Halfhat (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Boy this made me laugh, please tell us you're joking Loganmac (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposing additing on Sarkeesian shooting threat

Only doing this to get local consensus first, then will tag w/ edit request to get someone to do that.

At the end of the para that starts "The harassment expanded to include renewed threats against Sarkeesian...", we should add the following:

In mid-October, Sarkeesian cancelled a lecture she had planned to give at Utah State University after the school received a shooting threat attributed to Gamergate supporters that referenced the École Polytechnique massacre; Sarkeesian stated she only cancelled the engagement after the school could not assure her safety at the event due to state laws, but will continue to speak elsewhere.<ref name="nytimes asu"/>

<ref name="nytimes asu">{{cite web | url = http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/technology/gamergate-women-video-game-threats-anita-sarkeesian.html | title = Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in ‘GamerGate’ Campaign | first = Nick | last = Wingfield | date = October 15, 2014 | accessdate = October 15, 2014 | work = [[New York Times]] }}</ref>

Note that I do not think we should even get into any issue on the state law gun laws (allowing for concealed carry that the school could not interfere with), just that they couldn't assure she would be safe. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It's Utah State University, not Arizona. Also I think we can use all of the references provided when it first came out like the one from CNN and such.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

And as stated before

• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://kotaku.com/terror-threat-targets-anita-sarkeesian-for-speaking-at-1646371245|title=Anita Sarkeesian Cancels Speech Following Terror Threats [UPDATE]|last=Schreier|first=Jason|date=October 14, 2014|work=Kotaku|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/14/6979071/utah-state-university-anita-sarkeesian-threats|title=Utah State University threatened with school shooting over Sarkeesian appearance (updated)|first=Megan|last=Farokhmanesh|date=October 14, 2014|work=Polygon|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58521856-78/sarkeesian-usu-video-feminist.html.csp|title=Feminist cancels USU talk after guns allowed despite death threat|last=Alberty|first=Erin|date=October 14, 2014|work=The Salt Lake Tribune|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/10/14/anita-sarkeesian-cancels-speech-after-school-shooting-threat-at-utah-state/|title=Anita Sarkeesian Cancels Speech After School Shooting Threat At Utah State|first=Paul|last=Tassi|date=October 14, 2014|work=Forbes|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/10/death-threat-forces-cancellation-of-sarkeesian-university-speech/|title=Death threat forces cancellation of Sarkeesian university speech|first=Sam|last=Machkovech|date=October 14, 2014|work=Ars Technica|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scpr.org/blogs/newmedia/2014/10/14/17424/feminist-video-game-critic-anita-sarkeesian-receiv/|title=Video: Feminist video game critic Anita Sarkeesian receives latest in series of death threats - 89.3 KPCC|last=Roe|first=Mike|date=October 14, 2014|work=Southern California Public Radio|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.hjnews.com/news/threat-of-deadliest-school-shooting-in-american-history-leads-feminist/article_0eb29ed0-5404-11e4-a274-3334768d75c3.html|title=Threat of 'deadliest school shooting in American history' leads feminist to cancel USU lecture|last=Cannon|first=Kelly|date=October 14, 2014|work=The Herald Journal|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/15/tech/utah-anita-sarkeesian-threat/index.html|title=Anita Sarkeesian cancels Utah State speech after threat - CNN.com|last1=Ahmed|first1=Saeed|last2=Marco|first2=Tony|date=October 15, 2014|work=CNN|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/15/gamergate-feminist-video-game-critic-anita-sarkeesian-cancels-utah-lecture-after-threat-citing-police-inability-to-prevent-concealed-weapons-at-event/|title=‘Gamergate’: Feminist video game critic Anita Sarkeesian cancels Utah lecture after threat|last=McDonald|first=Soraya Nadia|date=October 15, 2014|work=The Washington Post|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/15/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-games-critic-cancels-talk|title=Feminist games critic cancels talk after terror threat|first=Alex|last=Hern|date=October 15, 2014|work=The Guardian|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ksl.com/?sid=31957809&nid=148&fm=most_popular&s_cid=popular-1|title=USU receives threatening email; feminist speaker cancels speech - KSL.com|first1=Natalie|last1=Crofts|first2=McKenzie|last2=Romero|date=October 14, 2014|publisher=[[KSL-TV]]|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

We only need one source to explain the cancellation, and the NYTimes is considered the best quality source for news like this. These other sources may be useful elsewhere but we don't need much on this. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

1. The NYT source cites the fact that the anon used the name of the killer in his e-mail, rather than mentioning École Polytechnique by name, not sure how crucial that difference is.
2. The message being conveyed to Sarkeesian was; "I will kill people at that school because you are a woman", that is why the anon signed the threat "Marc Lépine". I don't know if the NYT is making that IMO critical point, don't have time to read top to bottom right now unfortunately. Tarc (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The NYTimes and most of the other mainstream articles don't mention the Ecole Poly shooting by name, but they mention Lepine and the threat in reference to "a mass shooting in Montreal in 1989" (this in NYTimes), which is clearly the Ecole Poly shootings; there's no question what that reference is. That's not OR to connect that up for purposes of an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Do the sources directly mention GamerGate like our WP:NOR requires them to? Sure it was tragic, but is it related to Gamergate? Tutelary (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Did the fact that the NY Times story at the top of this section is titled "Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in ‘GamerGate’ Campaign" escape your purview? Tarc (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I was kind of meaning how do they make it about GamerGate, and wasn't wanting to read through about 11 just to see or figure a consensus on how they all treat it; whether it's apart of the larger story, or something like, 'A pro GG person just threatened Anita' or related. Tutelary (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If they say it's about Gamergate then we can say its about Gamergate. Last I checked, several of the sources that are in the "Utah State shooting threat" section higher up on the page that I've formatted ito these references, several of them mention Gamergate as related to the shooting threat. And IIRC, there is also discussion here or in one of the sources that Sarkeesian said the email referenced Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

To be fair to Tutelary's point, there is no clear indication this was specifically a GG related action, which is why the wording I chose said that the implication by officials and the press is that it is (as opposed to saying that GG issued the threat, which cannot be proven) --02:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If these sources are linking the threat to Gamergate then we can say it's related to Gamergate. Stop being soft.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are linking the threat but they do not say with 100%, fact checked assurety that is was GG, so we take the same approach Huge difference in how this is written, and basic fundamental WP policy. --MASEM (t) 03:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Per this interview with RS, we might want to note that Sarkeesian has previously spoken after her harassment at events that had received potential bomb threats, only here where they could not affirm her or the audience's safety due to state law did she back down. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

CinemaBlend - description of GamerGate positions

Stardock CEO, League of Legends Devs, Others Support #GamerGate.

Selected quotes:

“ Brad Wardell, the CEO of Stardock Entertainment has openly come out in support of the #GamerGate movement: "The problem is that the gaming media gets more hits from demonizing game makers which makes their audience angry and causes them to lash out at the appointed villain. So contextless articles are written designed to make you hate someone, usually people that the article writer already has a problem with. " ”

“ gamers felt as if the gaming community is losing the battle, and morale is dropping due to the larger media outlets not properly conveying what's really going on surrounding the #GamerGate controversy, painting the movement mostly as one designed to harass women. Many of the gamers are desperately pleading for developers to step forward and help them support #GamerGate in the open. ”

“ Additionally, a Riot Games employee [League of Legends] also came forward to support #GamerGate: "I know you don't really need to hear this but please don't harass anyone” … “Having said that, I really appreciate that this whole thing exists and applaud the level headed and respectful ones among you. The thing I'm afraid of is that without a movement like this, another game like Fallout 2 might never see the light of day. For a game like that to get made everyone in the room has to be able to discuss what the experience of enslaving people and buying a prostitute for your mutant friend will be. I have a hard time imagining that conversation comfortably taking place today and that's really sad." The sentiment above about not being able to have those conversations has been reiterated twice before during the #GamerGate debacle by other developers ”

“ A developer from a post-Soviet Union country talked about this very thing, saying "Today we are on a crossroad. Direction A means w, [sic] as indie developers commit ourselves to censorship and Direction B means we keep our “artistic freedom." ”

“ Daniel Vavra, the writer and designer for Mafia and Mafia II currently working at Warhorse Studios on Kingdom Come: Deliverance, also spoke out on behalf of #GamerGate. "Assassin’s Creed had 5 different articles about its lack of a female character on the front page of an industry website in one day. Five! Next to each other. And we can continue: the Far Cry 4 cover “scandal,” Stanley Parable was accused of racism, Wildstar was accused of sexism, God of War, Hotline Miami, Bioshock, Divinity Original Sin, Witcher… Nobody ever dares to argue or protect his art, because it would mean instant accusation of misogyny/racism/homophobia/sexism… And then you realize that the people who are accusing others everyday have terrible conflicts of interests and very weird ethics. The pot calling the kettle black. And they will never be happy. If you don’t have a gay character in your game, you are homophobic, if you do have gay character in your game, you are homophobic, because they don’t like the character. " ”

Diego (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So basically this is a few developers saying they don't like video game journalists criticizing their games for perceived issues of sexism, homophobia, etc., and they support GamerGate because they want video game journalists to stop criticizing their games.

Such a commitment to journalism ethics I have never seen in my life. And by that I mean it's literally the opposite of a commitment to journalism ethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You know, that [League of Legends] guy is sooo right . I have NEVER played a game that was any good at all that did not involve buying an alien prostitute for my friend. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, we're not here to discuss the legitimacy or lack there of GamerGate, only how to best cover it. The questions are, are their opinions worth covering, and the reliability of that site (I'm not familiar with it). Just because you don't agree with some opinions doesn't mean you shouldn't cover it.Halfhat (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You're making me uncomfortable.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

dont tell me the social justice warriors have gotten to you too? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is that, plus a RS quoting them and analyzing their words and placing them in context. I thought you said we cover what reliable sources write about, and it doesn't matter what we think of it? Diego (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, we can put in the article that some video game developers support Gamergate because they don't want video game journalists criticizing their games. If Gamergate wants to hoist itself on its own petard, who am I to stand in its way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a decent source. I'm far from the best to judge that though. Here's job information http://www.cinemablend.com/features/Cinema-Blend-Jobs-328.html Halfhat (talk) 11:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Also on The Escapist - here and here. Diego (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

We can also note the response to this line of thinking, as expressed by Kyle Wagner:

“ "The demands for journalistic integrity coming from Gamergate have nothing at all to do with the systemic corruption of the gaming media. They've centered instead on journalists purportedly pursuing social-justice agendas and on ridiculous claims that the press sees gamers as vectors of social contagion. Some of the complaints, like the idea that outlets ought to reconsider their editorial positions if enough readers disagree with them, even stand in direct opposition to traditional journalistic ethics. ... The problem, in other words, isn't that journalists have agendas; it's that some of them have the wrong agendas. ”

“ What's funny about all this is that a true interrogation of the corruption of the gaming press would materially harm the status quo that Gamergate is fiercely trying to protect. If what you want is yet more games about space marines and orcs in which women serve as props and decoration, why go after the de facto marketing departments of the people who make them? ”

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Deadspin a sports blog? Diego (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't CinemaBlend a movie blog? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Er, no. Despite its name, it describes itself as an "entertainment site. Reporting on movies, television, video games, and pop culture". Diego (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be mostly about movies, with perhaps one writer working on video games and republishing thinly-repackaged press releases. Deadspin also has some video games coverage.

More to the point, it doesn't really matter what the blog is about; it's a valid opinion piece, just like the opinions expressed by video game developers. Kyle Wagner's opinion has been referenced approvingly in a wide variety of reliable sources, which I'm pretty sure is more than you can say from anything from CinemaBlend. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So, despite the shape of the arguments, this looks like an agreement to cover the opinions of pro-GG developers from the sources in this section, in the terms discussed. Let's see if we can write something down with them. Diego (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

They have two writers for video games, actually. Willhesucceed (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request - delete Laurie Penny

Why is she in the article? She's mentioned in all of two pieces. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Because she had something to say about it and she's a notable individual.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Adam Baldwin is a notable individual and he's been covered much more than her, and he barely gets a mention. She shouldn't be in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willhesucceed (talk • contribs) 16:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Penny is an award winning, third party analyst and Baldwin is an involved party who is an actor. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Good_research -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

In which case we should have no problem using Milo Yiannopoulos' personal blog for information, too. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yianopoulos's personal blog is full of things that Wikipedia cannot publish per WP:BLP. Laurie Penny's blog does not have that same stigma.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it can't be sourced for non-BLP issues. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Like what?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Adam Baldwin and Laurie Penny have as much coverage on this article as each other. Most other content about Adam Baldwin will probably violate BLP considering most people have to say about him in the media is that he's right wing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Adam Baldwin and Laurie Penny have as much coverage on this article as each other." And they clearly shouldn't. Penny is given undue weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willhesucceed (talk • contribs) 16:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sign your fucking posts. And AFAIK, Adam Baldwin doesn't have anything to add to the discussion here that would not be violating BLP.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not about Adam Baldwin. This is about Laurie Penny. She doesn't deserve mention. Willhesucceed (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

if this is not about Baldwin, why did YOU bring him up? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I was contrasting her with him for notability. Willhesucceed (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

yes, he is more famous probably but famous actors are not where we go for content, other than maybe about acting. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Good_research -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Why doesn't she deserve mention though? This mentions she had a bomb threat and this vaguely references some other harassment she received, all long before Gamergate and in regards to her stances on feminism rather than video games. She's a mainstream journalist who had an opinion on this matter and not at all involved in video games. She's an external voice on the matter.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

1. "long before Gamergate" This article is about Gamergate. 2. Again, only two articles. Look above at how many Yiannopoulos / Breitbart have and we're only going to be including a sentence or two.

She's just not noteworthy for this article. It doesn't make any sense to include her. Willhesucceed (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That's clearly your opinion and not held by the other editors of this article. Harassment she received before Gamergate does not mean that she cannot say anything about Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If giving two sentences to a wide variety of sources is the norm, then by that norm, she'll be left out under due weight; if that's the type of numerical sourcing we require. It's also interesting to see Ryulong's thoughts on different people and due weight. Tutelary (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by that?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a head's up

This is WP:FORUM. Dreadstar ☥ 22:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It seems like there is a furore growing over the announcement of a Postal-like game, which simply goes by the name "Hatred". Hopefully, it won't turn out to be another headache for you editors, but I would like to forewarn you of another possible sh*t-storm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎203.106.158.198 (talk) Sigh, how charming. It is already being tied to the larger Gamergate topic, too; "An aspect of the current Gamergate argument is that core gamers are upset at critics for looking at video games as anything other than for fun. Now a video game pops up which identifies a game about sociopathy and mass shootings as a pure, gaming pleasure?" - Daily Dot. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC) How has the left become so much like the right? Buckle up everybody! Willhesucceed (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC) We should not pay any mind to a video game expressly made by a Neo-Nazi/white supremacist group to bank on the Gamergate situation.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Not sure if it's worth a mention yet, but if it really is designed to simulate the killing of "social justice warriors", as the marketing implies, then down the road it may tie in to the larger hate screed of the gamergate crowd. Tarc (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC) collapse per WP:FORUM The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. No, we should really never give a Neo-Nazi group the time of day.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC) The Westboro Baptist Church and ISIS have wiki articles. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC) The WBC and the Islamic State are not Neo-Nazi groups. The group behind Hatred is a Neo-Nazi group trying to cash in on Gamergate by going "we're not making a politically correct game, we're making a game where you get to kill brown people indiscriminately". If they do not gain notability, then they don't get mentioned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Your moral ranking of ISIS and WBC as better than neo-nazis is interesting. The group isn't known to be neo-nazi. One of their developers wore a Polish Defence League shirt. Perhaps they're simply more tolerant of differing opinions. Even if they are a neo-nazi group, so what? The solution to hateful expression is more freedom of expression. Anyway, this is not a forum. Willhesucceed (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC) I honestly don't know what the fuck you're trying to do here. People involved in the development of Hatred are espousing extreme right ideals in their video game and banking off of Gamergate's "we want games where you shoot people and not ones where there's a political message", not to mention the "Polish Defense League" is just another right-wing group. The Westboro Baptist Church's hatred of everyone and picketing funerals of people blaming the gays, Jews, blacks, etc. for all of the worlds' ills and the Islamic State's jihadist and genocidal actions across Syria and Iraq are terrible and you were the person to originally make a comparison here. The video game Hatred should not be given the time of day on this article unless it is actually tied into Gamergate and used as an example of the fact that the movement is a right wing hate group as well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC) I'm not trying to do anything. Oh, and clearly, this link Cathy Young provides in her Reason article points out that Gamergate is not a right-wing hate group. Now let's stop. Willhesucceed (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC) 360 is not a suitable sample size. And there's so much else out there in the sources of this article and sources posted on this page during the protection that lead to the fact that it's a conservativistic reaction regardless of how many people with Guy Fawkes masks say they're libertarians.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC) We should wait to see if the mainstream sources notice this and incorporate it into the narrative (I can see the potential for that happening but clearly not yet). --MASEM (t) 16:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Polygon (which I note doesn't connect the game to GG), but would not include yet. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Did the guys who make this say that this was somehow tied into gg, or is that the newspapers? --86.156.85.208 (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Doesn't matter, all it takes is a few a freelancer to say it is, and you got it as fact on the Wiki article. Loganmac (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Adland

http://adland.tv/adnews/gamergate-moral-panic-resembles-90s-which-directly-affects-womens-career-choices/1629488701

Another person noting moral panic, like Allum Bokhari did, and reiterating that the controversy is hurting the industry, as Digitimes did. She ultimately puts the blame on the media. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Deadspin not reliable

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/10/thanks-deadspin/ Willhesucceed (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As I've indicated above, save for Kotaku's statement about the Quinn/Grayson stuff, I am pretty confident we can avoid requiring any VG site sources, as well as avoiding Gawker sites (at least as sole sources), though not because of the above article, just that we can pretty much put this article on mainstream sources. --MASEM (t) 04:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine with leaving the Deadspin article out. We've got 80 million indisputable others that can say the same things. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

More new articles

Entertainment Weekly establishing that the issue of why GG started have been lingering in both VG and the general entertainment industry for a while.

Slate speaking to a cyberthreat investor on how the tactics the GG side has used makes them difficult to prosecute.

Another New Yorker piece.

Guardian speaking to B. Wu. Note that I think I can pull from other sources that aren't just more from Wu to explain that one element that critics of GG point out is that these are people that do not appear to have an idea of the value of the human lives they are harming to make their opinion known.

New York Magazine that can be used to source out the games-as-art trend as part of the issue leading to GG, and the stuff around DQ.

WAPost on the ESA fully stating their opposition to the GG side (someone linked E3's organizers saying the same).

Just as a thought on my head, we are definitely going to refocus much of the structure of this - there are elements that were "important" early on but really no longer matter too much to the narrative representing by these newer sources. Also now that Polygon has offered its statement on GG, there's talk other major sites will follow and this will likely lead to more media coverage towards that. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if this was covered already, but despite WaPo's title, the ESA never actually spoke out against GG, but rather condemned "threats of violence and harassment?" AnyyVen (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Your head has to be deeply buried somewhere if you are insisting that the threats of violence and harassment are not being attributed to Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And even if we want to be that pedantic, we can clear state that the ESA spoke out about threats of violence and harassment shortly after the Sarkeenian shooting threat. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The author of the article has confirmed that "I asked for a statement on GG, and that's the full statement that came into my inbox, after a pretty lengthy convo." and "At the risk of repeating myself: I asked for a statement on GamerGate, by name, for that story.". 94.194.199.197 (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice new pretty graphs from WaPost about gamer demographics in light of the GG demographic switch issue. We can't use those directly but we can easily recreate them as free images, and I think the one showing the male gamer as the minority now is a good one to include in conjunction with discussing this as a culture war. --MASEM (t) 04:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The graphs are a bit of a tangent that I think would be more appropriate for the gender representation in video games article. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Rolling Stone interviews Anita Sarkeesian in the wake of the Utah State University death threats.

Mother Jones on prominent voices speaking out against GamerGate (Seth Rogen, Patton Oswalt, Joss Whedon, etc.)

The Week says "GamerGate has backfired spectacularly."

Jack Shafer, Reuters' staff media critic, says Internet anonymity is partly to blame for the viciousness of GamerGate's trolls.

The Irish Times says that "more than anything else" GamerGate proves "the continuing prevalence of violent misogyny in popular culture."

No shortage of RSes on this now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Better lead sentence

Gamergate (sometimes referred to as GamerGate or as a hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy in video game culture which began in August 2014. Gamergate is the name of a controversy that started in August 2014 primarily over social media as a culture war between members of the video game media, developer community, and gamer community over pre-existing issues of sexism and misogyny in the video game culture, and the ethics of video game journalism. Aimed to capture a few issues that have been id'd above, adding in the idea this is a culture war (more than enough sources), identifying but not pigeonholing key players, and avoiding the "inherent"/"ingrained" issue with the fact that these problems have been there. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with that change. Q ^{T C} 03:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Could replace the laundry list with "a culture war in video game culture over pre-existing issues..." More concise and inclusive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with masem Retartist (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It has so many clauses that it seems like it should really be 2 sentences. Also the way two different meanings of the word "over" are used in the same sentence is a bit jarring. How about this: "Gamergate is the name of a controversy over pre-existing issues of sexism and misogyny in the video game culture, and the ethics of video game journalism. The controversy first arose in August 2014 and was primarily propagated via social media as a culture war between members of the video game press, developer community, and gamer community." ? -Thibbs (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I prefer yours, Thibbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willhesucceed (talk • contribs) 05:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate is a culture war that began on social media in August 2014 involving the video game media, developer community, and gamer community over pre-existing issues of sexism, misogyny, and journalistic ethics in video game culture. Cleaned up language, 51 words down to 36, better links. --beefyt (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I like it better, but I still find there to be too many qualifiers splitting the subject. At its most simple core it's "a controversy/culture war over pre-existing issues... and journalistic ethics." That's what the article should lead with. Then further qualifiers could be added to the end of the sentence. How about this: Gamergate is a culture war over pre-existing issues of sexism, misogyny, and journalistic ethics in video game culture that began on social media in August 2014 and involved the video game media, developer community, and gamer community. ? -Thibbs (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd split it up to make sure to add "members of" since not all of those groups are involved. eg "...journalistic ethics in the video game culture. The controversy started in social media in August 2014 between members of the video game media, developer community, and gamer community." --MASEM (t) 05:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate was not a "culture war", it was a lynchmob that backfired.[43] "War" implies that there were two belligerents involved. Kaldari (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That very article says "culture war". Also, a culture war is not always a war with two explicit sides, but can be a single group against a larger shifting tide. --MASEM (t) 06:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. Opposition withdrawn. Kaldari (talk) 07:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I think of the versions suggested, Thibbs' is the most readable, although I prefer the existing wording of 'ingrained' over 'pre-existing'. Kaldari (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

AgreeI think that's far better. Halfhat (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

reliable sources dont present it as a "culture war" - they present it as "Ostensibly a campaign against corruption in journalism but in practice a grassroots attack on feminist critics in gaming" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. This is a disingenuous treatment of the subject, bordering on deceptive, and I'm ashamed that an admin is actually behind it. This is ingrained sexism and harassment, long-ingrained in the gamer community that came to a boil over false allegations of impropriety against a female game developer. This is not a "culture war", unless there's a "culture" that is pro-sexual harassment in play here. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

We have to be neutral as Wikipedia editor. The neutral stance, with reporters not invested in this, is that this is a culture war that has included unfortunately nasty tactics. If you cannot take the middle ground stance (proGG or antiGG side) , you should not be touching this article. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What refs will be used for the use of "culture war"?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

WAPost, Stuff.co.nz Metro UK, CBS News, (arguably CNN though there it is a quote from a game journalist). I believe there's a few older ones but those are all in response to the Sarkeensian shooting threat news. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

We should really get something on the shooting threat into the article soon.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this is helpful. Could we combine it with a solution to the issue 33/basic lack of explanation? It seems like both are aiming at parts of the same basic issue of providing context. valereee (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

AND: in the interests of developing something that won't need nitpicky usage edits -- 'among' rather than 'between' probably, because more than two entities. valereee (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Disagree leave the misogyny bit off Ginnygog (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You cannot remove something that everyone has been saying exists as part of it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the fact that there's no specific party to blame for the misogyny (in fact it is clearly a standing issue through all three parties listed). But Ryulong's 100% correct that since every non-gaming mainstream source has called out something misogynic about the situation (whether anti- or pro-GG), it is part of it. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

When was misogyny called out on the anti-GG side though?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out with the "ingrained" discussion, the industry has been dealing with internal misogyny; they may not have been called it after it started, but the statement does not belie that it was a problem. --MASEM (t) 02:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Revamp per opinions above: Gamergate is the name given to a culture war within the video game industry over pre-existing issues of sexism and misogyny in the video game culture, and the ethics of video game journalism with the maturing industry. The controversy occurred primarily over social media starting in August 2014 between members of the video game media, developer community, and gamer community. --MASEM (t) 02:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Just started reading this and am troubled by the "ingrained" piece, solely because the source reports opinion just as much as fact. Is there a suitable replacement, preferably from a more standard RS? Otherwise that really should come out, especially since it is made in Voice.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There are countless sources that use various other synonyms for "ingrained". "Ingrained" is a compromise over every other synonym out there that says that misogyny and sexism are part of the gamer DNA.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If there are countless, can you suggest a few? Preferably from high quality sources like newspapers, or academic journals. I'm skeptical of making any bold claims in Voice from the gaming press.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

TKoP, please search the talk page archives. NPR, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Salon, Time, CBC, etc. etc. etc. Don't mean to seem short about it, but this was litigated extensively and "ingrained" was the agreed-upon consensus. We originally directly quoted The Washington Post, which stated that "Sexism in gaming is a long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable problem." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh, and what are "indie works"? Readers shouldn't have to click on the references to find out, and we shouldn't expect the reader to know what those are.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the talk page's archives.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The archive says that the consensus is that the article has problems in this way; it needs to be fixed. I know; I was there. Quit biting people. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We don't expect the readers of this article to read the archives. Indie works needs to be explained or blue linked.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

We expect you to read the archives when we tell you to when these points have been raised time and time again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

First off, it is a violation of WP:BLP. Secondly, it isn't true; as RSs point out, it really isn't related to, particularly severe in, or specific to gamer culture at all. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Ummmm, no. It's not a violation of BLP. Video game culture and the industry do not constitute an identifiable group. Some sources state that it's part of a broader issue, but also state that video gaming has a particular problem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Video game culture and the industry do not constitute an identifiable group", but the members of GameJournoPros do, even when RSes don't identify them by name? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. GameJournoPros is a small, identifiable group with, per sources, no more than 120 or so members, whereas "GamerGate" and "Video game culture" are large, amorphous and unidentifiable masses. They are not even groups, really — they are "things." GamerGate's issue with this has been repeatedly discussed in reliable sources; since there's no way to actually control who uses a hashtag, you don't have an organized group so much as an anonymous mob. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not a violation of BLP. No singular person is being singled out and accused of being a misogynist or sexist. A nebulous group is. A group is not protected by BLP. And in another section I had linked to 8 sources used throughout the article that use the word "misogyny" or a variation to describe Gamergate. We are not going through this every time some new Gamergater comes to have his say.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, I could post flat-out racism on Wikipedia and it would be "not a violation of BLP". 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And it might not be. It might be removable for other reasons, such as WP:NOTHERE, but it might not be a violation of BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Spiked "An un-PC rebellion"

link

I could basically quote the whole thing. It notes that what's going on is the result of a moral panic. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It's also an unreliable source, and the author is a consultant at a PR firm. Woodroar (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

How is it unreliable? About Allum Bokhari is a political consultant. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Like the Tech Crunch piece he wrote, it's a blog: "spiked has an open door policy on contributors". When a reliable source hires him to write about video games or cultural issues, or when he is recognized as an expert in the area, then we can discuss it. Woodroar (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

How does a "political consultant" not count as "a recognized expert in the area"? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Potentially usable as an opinion piece, but we already give this writer's opinions an entire paragraph and I don't think they particularly deserve more space than that. His declarations that this is a "moral panic" and that linking Gamergate to harassment is a "bizarre belief" are verging on WP:FRINGE territory anyway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

And now that I'm looking into it, I wonder why we're using this source at all. The discussions about Tech Crunch at WP:VG/RS have been mixed because of concerns about it being a blog. Of course, blog posts written by staff members or experts can sometimes be reliable, but that doesn't appear to be the case here: it's a one-off post written by someone not on the Tech Crunch staff. I don't see a history of articles about video games or culture from the bio blurbs at Tech Crunch or Spiked, and searches for his name in the WPVG Google "reliable" search turn up 0 results (and 2 forum posts in the "situational" search). He works at a PR firm. I mean, I think his statement in the article is similar to other random opinions I've seen expressed online, but we don't include opinions just because someone has one. I hate to say this, but imagine the hate we would get if we sourced anti-GamerGate opinions to someone working at a PR firm, not to mention someone without a background in video games at all. Woodroar (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right. We should also remove Ryan Smith, Lianna Kerzner, Erik Kain and Christina Hoff Sommers. It'll improve the article. Willhesucceed (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I know you're being facetious, but at least they have some kind of background relevant to the issue at hand. All I'm saying is that our bar for opinion sources shouldn't be as low as "do they have an opinion?". Woodroar (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggested earlier that we raise the bar for anybody's opinions to "has it been quoted by a separate reliable source"? IMO removing those opinions that a journalist has published in their column, and keeping only those that have had an impact on someone else, would have a large effect toward improving neutrality and proper weight to the article. Diego (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right, a political consultant has no business commenting on what's being described as a culture war. Willhesucceed (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Lack of credibility of death threats

More BLP by topic banned editor

Per Utah State University, citing the FBI and other law enforcement officials: "Following a disturbing email received late Monday evening, Utah State University police and administrators have been working throughout the day to assess any level of risk to students or to a speaker scheduled to visit. USU police, in conjunction with several teams of state and federal law enforcement experts, determined that there was no threat to students, staff or the speaker, so no alert was issued." "Throughout the day, USU police worked to assess the level of threat with other local, state and federal agencies, including the Utah Statewide Information and Analysis Center, the FBI Cyber Terrorism Task Force, and the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit. After a careful assessment of the threat, law enforcement officials determined that it was similar to other threats that Sarkeesian received in the past." We really need to be careful about this death threat stuff; no one has been charged with anything as far as I know, there are concerns about their authenticity and seriousness <redacted per BLP> Even beyond these issues, though, I'm seeing news articles which are reporting on these threats as if they were credible even days after they were dismissed by authorities; we should be very careful about this sort of thing, and try to make sure when the authorities are involved that they can confirm this stuff. Independent confirmation of this stuff would be nice <redacted per BLP> Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC) No, there is no concern about their authenticity and I have redacted per BLP the entirely unsourced and COMPLETELY unacceptable suggestion that they were fabricated for attention. I now intend to open an ArbCom case against you — you have YET AGAIN after being warned 80 million times, made unfounded accusations about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Please do not twist his words. He was concerned about credibility, not authenticity. He didn't suggest that they were "fabricated for attention". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.65.221 (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Nevermind, I apologize. He did indeed imply it was about authenticity. Sorry 178.190.65.221 (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC) He did not imply he flat out asserted. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Some neutral/nuanced/pro-GG sources

The New Show is an official MSN show.

• Can you give me more details on The New Show? Are there outside sources which talk about it much? MSN is a legit network. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently The New Show is part of SourceFed, which is a Discovery Channel digital network, and MSN has decided to run it. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Reddit

• Reddit may be useful for finding information, but it is worthless as a source itself. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

According to one of the admins, verified AMAs are RS. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If they're verified, but a mod slapping a verified tag doesn't make it so. You'll need to find the actual tweet or whatever from a validated twitter account where they say that the AMA is done by them. Given that that AMA doesn't even have her name, I doubt that it will work for anything. --PresN 17:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Totalbiscuit

• Totalbiscuit is a games journalist and is pretty well-regarded from what I can tell. What factual information would you suggest we cite from him? Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to have another listen. I've been awake all night and can't remember what he said. Something about Gamergate not being a group of bigots. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a new source, but it's fine for personal opinion

• What was said here which is valuable for the article? Honestly I think the article already has too much opinion as-is. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've already gone through RS concerns over here. I won't fight it for RS status if people don't want to allow it, but it's at least allowable for opinion. I do wish people would watch it and decide on merit whether it deserves inclusion as an RS, rather than knee-jerking. The article will be poorer for not including it.

In the video, there's consensus that the media made things worse, that instead of enabling discussion they inflamed tensions. I'm sure there were some other things, but again, I haven't slept all night. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

HuffPost Live

• -

And in light of the fact that nobody in the press is actually talking to GG, I'd like to include these, especially the second and third, because they're an angle that hasn't been examined anywhere else. Willhesucceed (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Now tell me why none of these should be included.

Willhesucceed (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Reddit AMAs and all this other stuff doesn't really cut it for WP:RS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've read elsewhere that if it's verified it's usable. What is "all this other stuff"? Willhesucceed (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to understand what verified means on Wikipedia. Basically, nothing you have linked can be used at all on this article or any other.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS is the relevant policy here. This means that things need to be found in what are known as "reliable sources". A reliable source is a source which engages in fact checking, has a good reputation for honesty and integrity, does not suffer from a conflict of interest, ect. The fact that it is on the internet is not enough; we need to have a good source for it. Thus, just because, say, Zoe Quinn says something, doesn't mean we can put it on Wikipedia - and this is especially true if it is about a living person, as we aren't supposed to use primary sources (that is to say, stuff like interviews, self-published material, ect.) about living persons at all, unless the person is a recognized expert, or under some other narrow circumstances (i.e. it is notable that they said something or something similar). There are a lot of potential signs of being a reliable source; I would recommend you go through the WP:RS article.

More or less, we're looking for sources which are reliable. Something like Reddit is not going to qualify because anyone can post anything there with no fact checking or any real sense of accountability - we may not even know the name of the person who posted the material. On the other hand, something like CERN, NASA, or a similar source would pretty much be the polar opposite - highly recognized experts with a very good reptutation for fact checking and excellent credentials. Most sources fall somewhere in between these two points.

Note that reliability is both general and specific; that is to say, while something may be a credible source in general, it may not be in specific circumstances if it makes factual errors or suffers from a conflict of interest in a specific case. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As a subject of the article, statements from Zoe Quinn can in fact be used under the WP:PRIMARYSOURCES rule, so long as we are only using what she has said about herself and attributing it as something she has said.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Also so long as it isn't about other living persons, isn't unduly self-serving, ect. <redacted per BLP> Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

All of these sources are fine for tracking how content percolates through the median, but none of them are of sufficient quality to add content to a controversial article. aprock (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Internet culture

'The "Twitter death/rape threat" is so common, it's a media meme.' - Business Insider

'If #Gamergate teaches us anything — beyond, of course, vastly obvious observations about the toxicity of certain Internet demographics (which is hardly new news)' - TechCrunch

Slate

Business Matters Engadget guy specifically attributes what's happened to internet culture.

Forbes

BBC

NPR

I believe there are enough sources discussing the internet culture aspect of this that it deserves mentioning. Willhesucceed (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Part of that is that this vg culture war is part of a larger culture war as more ideas are given predominance in mainstream creative works despite the past prevailing demographic, a few sources we have for that. --MASEM (t) 02:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

#StopGamerGate2014

The Daily Dot becomes the first source to examine the backlash-hashtag #StopGamerGate2014 that was launched in the wake of the mass-murder threats against Sarkeesian and Utah State University. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's blacklisted from Wikipedia, too. Funny how that commitment to reliable sources lapses from time to time.--ArmyLine (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Uhhh, no, The Daily Dot isn't blacklisted. If it was blacklisted, the link wouldn't even show up here. We use other The Daily Dot work as sources for this article already, actually. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

However, it is a weak source. Let's wait for a better one on this. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's not banned as of now. It might have been a year ago when I tried to add a link. It's still worth observing that the commitment to reliable sources espoused by the frequent editors to this page wanes in the face of tenuous criticism of the subject.--ArmyLine (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

We are at a point here where it is very valid to review earlier sources and consider if they are really necessary or appropriate in light of more recent, more mainstream sources (see my point about the latest WAPost above); later sources will have a better hindsight view to help balance the coverage appropriately. That's why I think going on we have to be very hesistant about using "weak" sources like Daily Dot (It's fine for less controversial topics, but not here). Note that I don't think within 48hr we'll lack a good quality source for this current hashtag... --MASEM (t) 05:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I bet this counts as a "good quality source".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said, within 48hrs I figured we'd have some; that, and a new WAPost one (separate from the summary above), and a Metro.uk... --MASEM (t) 14:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The hashtag's pretty much already dead. Gamergate deniers don't seem to have much commitment to their ideals. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it? How can you tell? If it is dead then maybe we can add it in that there was another counter-hashtag that died. --86.169.65.31 (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There are sites that map Twitter hashtags. It turns out I was wrong. It was dead as of a few hours ago. It's back at the moment, and centred on New York ... and the Philippines. I'll leave that to speculation. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

read: the earth turns, there's timezones and now the western world is waking up to flood social media again. We'd have to wait days to determine its' "death". --MASEM (t) 15:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

So... Check back in a week then? --86.169.65.31 (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Other sources for this: Kotaku, Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, Forbes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I still want to wait 7 days, well, 6 days now, before I want to say that this thing is going to stay. I knew a fair few people who thought GamerGate was another small internet shitstorm that would blow over in two weeks, and it has lasted for over a month now. I think. Let's see whether it can keep up it's momentum for a couple of days before we add it. Is that okay with you? --86.169.65.31 (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That hashtag is already dying lol http://i.imgur.com/k8NNjkB.jpg they've tried this before, but oh well it gained the attention of the totally not colluding gaming media so I guess Loganmac (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Really sounding like an unbiased editor there buddy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:5900:39A:616E:BFE3:54A1:7918 (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is the colluding media that is the bane of gamergate- not their lack of a coherent message, their focus on minor trivialities and non-existent conspiracies or their unwillingness to distance themselves from and condemn vile harassment and death threats or their insistence that death and rape threats are not important but their incoherent claims are important. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Give it a few more days, I want to see whether it will revive or not. --86.156.85.208 (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Operation Disrespectful Nod

I've been thinking that there should be a mention of why the operation is called the way it is. I vaguely remember the reason as to why it was called that. But for anyone who reads it they might question the thought process as to giving the operation that title. Though if there's no sources to help explain the reason that's understandable. GamerPro64 04:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no sources (reliable enough) for it. But the intent of the name is clear from the purpose of it. --MASEM (t) 04:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Everyone knows where it came from but this is another instance where Wikipedia can't be informative because no RS bothered to actually "investigate" it and mention it. Loganmac (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ingrained compromise

@Masem: and other parties, seems someone changed 7 days back to 2 and the conversation got prematurely archived again... picking up where we left of, as I understand you view the term ingrained to differ enough from inherent so as not to contradict it, I propose we add a parenthesis directly after saying it is not inherent, and linking to Yang's article. Like so:

It concerns ingrained (but not inherent^ref) issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community

If it is notable to call an issue ingrained based on a venturebeat article then it should also be notable to say the issue is not inherent. Or alternatively we can declare neither adjective notable and just drop both and say "concerns issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community". Ranze (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see section above about a better lead where I have suggested using " pre existing" instead in the lead. --MASEM (t) 12:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

We've also had this discussion before. At the latter end I proposed a few sources to replace those we have now for "inherent". I'd rather not do that, as we really don't need to clutter 3 more sources on for every dispute, but if it can help us refocus on making the article coherent by putting this to bed I'll do it. I've now seen like 2-3 comments from experienced editors who are new to GG say that this article is either hard to follow or poorly structured. Part of that comes from fighting these piecemeal battles over a word here and a quote there and not being able to improve the article as a whole without offending 6 different constituencies. We need to either hammer this sort of stuff out and keep it in an FAQ (e.g. "this is why we use this description of the movement" or "this is how we treat certain terms") not for readers but for us, really. Or we need to dial it back and focus on editing what we have now to get the point across a little more clearly. Protonk (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The citation for "ingrained" is inadequate to allow the word to be used without quotation marks and inline attribution. It's an opinion, and not properly Wikipedia's opinion.

Can someone request a proper boxed notification of this page's protection status, date of expiration, etc? These discreet little padlocks need to be stamped out. Andyvphil (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There does not need to be any change to this matter just because you've decided to jump controversial topics.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

TotalBiscuit did an audioblog on this topic

https://soundcloud.com/totalbiscuit/weaponised-charity As far as I'm aware he hasn't posted a transcript. Halfhat (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

But what can we do with this article? Extract an opinion from it? --86.156.85.208 (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

He's relevant and a respectable opinion on the matter but this is sadly a self-published source Loganmac (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." It can be used for his attributed opinions, if he qualifies. Andyvphil (talk)

I'm unaware of anyone considering John Bain as an expert in either journalism ethics or issues of harassment on the Internet, so I don't think that applies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

He's a lawyer, so he'd get the ethics bit. And if he weren't relevant, why would Erik Kain include him alongside gaming publications EICs in a discussion on the topic? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmosgPNXmNc Willhesucceed (talk) 09:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding to the FAQ

I've seen this question asked a lot and so I think that we should add it to the FAQ so we can head off any complaints by referring them to the FAQ. Question: "Why aren't we adding any other allegations from her ex-boyfriend?" Answer: "They are either irrelevant or a violation of WP:BLP since it is a defamatory allegation from a poor source i.e. a self-published blog."

--86.156.85.208 (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I presume it's not mentioned in the FAQ as it would be an extension of that BLP violation by effectively giving a BLP violation an official status. Or something. Possibly. The final two FAQ answers cover it in any case. Koncorde (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that any new editors coming here pay any attention to the FAQ anyway? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't get this point. I mean you don't have to say the allegations are tre or what they are. Just say there were other allegations. While the blogpost isn't a good source for the truth we can use the blogpost to see what the blogpost said. Halfhat (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we can't and won't. It is not an acceptable source or external link here, per policy. We do not include material from self-published sources which is defamatory or otherwise-negative toward a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we work on restructuring this article

Okay there's been a lot of focus on neutrality in the talk, and that's not a bad thing, but I think other stuff needs addressed. This article is quite poorly structured, and I think it could be written in a much more logical and aesthetically pleasing manner. The article is a mess. For example in the section that's supposed to be about the legitimacy of the concerns it discusses sites changing their policies. Now this is linked, but I think it'd be better if it was in a section documenting the response, talking about other things like the backlash and the Gaurdian's article accusing the media of bias. Halfhat (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking about a good way to restructure this article for a while, but wading through the infodump here is really time consuming to do alone. I think part of it is that a lot of the sections are fleshed out using quotes from what seem to be opinion pieces. I feel like the best thing to do would be to compile 20 or so of the most recent mainstream reliable sources (not opinion pieces) and restructure the article based on them. Once there's a really basic rundown of what happened then we can reintroduce a handful of opinion pieces. What do you think? My biggest concern is the overly long background section. I think it can be significantly shortened or even removed, since a lot of its content could be reincorporated into more defined sections later in the article without losing much context, if any. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're willing to, I think this sounds good. We can keep the current one up until we have a decent draft article that gets census. But yeah we should be careful about using heavily opinionated sources when discussing the facts Halfhat (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If you do restructure, can I suggest describing Gamer Gate as a controversy concerning identity politics? Rather than the more biased approach of just point-blank accusing the movement of misogyny. For example, "The Gamer Gate controversy concerns identity politics in the gaming community and journalistic ethics in the online gaming press - particularly conflicts of interest between video game journalists and developers. The movement itself has been widely criticized as misogynistic due to ongoing hostility towards female developers and game critics."

Something along those lines. I recommended this in the above thread, but it's become a very long debate and I didn't want it to be buried. I think the wording I've used is a good, non-biased introduction that still accurately acknowledges the prevailing criticism against Gamer Gate. Statements like this make it clear that these perspectives are held by individuals involved in the controversy rather than by Wikipedia itself. YellowSandals (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that is not how reliable sources weight the issue; it's the ideal statement of the more rational side of proGG but no mainstream source presents it as such. This is why I've suggested calling it a culture war between devs, journalists, and gamers, that involve several issues, which is accurate but broad enough to not paint any side "wrong" for this. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying it's a cultural conflict works well too. YellowSandals (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

But we can just focus on the logical way to organise it, before we then work on the content, then the wording, then the aesthetics. Halfhat (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, from what I've seen, you're a pretty solid judge on the reliability of sources. I'm planning on going through the references and the previous posts here (I think there's one about switching out some articles for more reliable/thorough ones?) but I was wondering if you had any non-opinion piece sources that you considered particularly reliable. It might be helpful to have a handful of quality sources to help us determine how the article should be structured. I think if we can get away from structuring it around opinion pieces it would be easier to show that it is, in fact, what the reliable sources are saying and not just a collection of feelings on the controversy. Kaciemonster (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The best articles to use for sourcing are the ones that are from national newspapers or news sources - so New York Times, LA Times, BBC, Washington Post, etc. The bulk of these are not video game or even tech-heavy sources, so they are breaking down the story for any reader, and are the least biased in the matter. Which ones, see most of these from these places in the article, but several more have been IDd in recent days. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Jeff Gerstmann says "no thanks" to pro-Gamergaters

So when "GamerGate" rose up to cover over a campaign of harassment with a veneer of concern for the ethics of games journalism, it more or less set off every single disgust alarm I have. Though I'm sure some good people have been roped into this mess under this guise, the ethical concern portion of all this is largely a farce, a fallacy. - Jeff Gerstmann

Even though he never weighed in on any of this until now, the Gameragte folk, e.g. Brietbart, cited his 2007 firing as the kind of "journalistic ethics" transgressions they were rallying around. That bubble just got popped, it seems. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not so much on Gerstmann's point, but that this is the second major VG review site (that I'm aware, haven't checked others) for the site's EIC or primary contributor to put an official word on the site's stance on the matter (Polygon yesterday), and I expect to see this trend continue, and importantly to this article, be the subject of mainstream sources that outline the stance that VG sites are taking wrt to GG. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, and the mainstream sources will ignore all the sites that support GG, all the people who support GG, and won't even bother to interview or engage them. Masem, you're not even trying anymore. This article's going to go to shit. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I am speaking of rebalancing the substance on the narrative as more details come in, putting less emphasis on initial parts of the events and focusing on the larger picture, and still taking out excessive opinion - in this case, I would not include any specific statement from Poly or GB or the like, but if the mainstream press notes that most of the VG sites have spoken out in an official statement against GG, that we should include as outright factual information. We cannot do anything to give more time to proGG if no mainstream press site is going to give them fair balance to this. (And also keep in mind, this article is still locked down, no one has made any changes for it for about a week I think now). --MASEM (t) 17:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

We follow the reliable sources, Mr. Will; no more, no less. Some have been saying this since day 1, the regarding the "veneer of concern for the ethics of games journalism". This is reality that mainstream sources are recognizing. Tarc (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And while I will continue to try to fight to provide a reasonable balance on this article to both sides within the scope/ratio that the media (mainstream) reports on, I have to be brutally honest that the trend in the mainstream media (not VG media) is going towards a point where I can't even argue for inclusion of proGG points, due to how the press is taking the recent threats and harassment to reflect on the entire group. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The rules pretty much allow editors to do anything they need to do to make a proper article, so we can go outside mainstream sources.

Has Wikipedia never addressed the problem of media bias? We just report only what they report, facts be damned? Willhesucceed (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

We're supposed to mirror what high quality reliable sources say, not interpret that , meaning that unless there's a well-demonstrated media bias, we can't address that. That said, what is happening now is not a media bias; the VG press reporting on all this - since the harassment continues against those developers and other similar tactics, are going to have a general bias that we should avoid their sources when we can, but the mainstream media, like New York Times, etc. are reporting as they seen it with a common consideration of what is appropriate human decency - which harassment of people (particularly women) does not fall under. And as reported by other sources, this stigma of the actions that a few are doing are hurting any chance of proGG getting a fair deal by the press due to that. We can recognize that, but our hands are tied from a sourcing aspect. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This is like not discussing Muslims because ISIS. Might as well delete the entire article for the worth it has now. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If you were expecting this article to promote the proGG side, that's not happening. And your anology is false as in that situation, there are Muslins that have clearly separated themselves from any claimed cause ISIS has and have openly asked for discussions for peaceful solutions; several media commentators have said the same about those in the proGG side that want media ethics concerns to do a similar separation and condemnation of the harassment but there's no sign of that happening, so the media's going to group them all together. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I expected the article to be accurate, or at least for editors to know what they're editing. Gamergate are the first to report harassment to Twitter and the FBI. They even tracked down the guy who was sending death threats to Sarkeesian. They gave $70000 to get women into game development, $5000 for depression, $15000 for bullying, and are currently raising money for feeding programs. Gamergate's detractors are doing what? Meanwhile, Daniel Vavra, Jennifer Dawes, and every other indie developer who's come out in support of Gamergate have been blacklisted from the industry. The article is one thing, but let's drop the pretense on the talk page. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please list mainstream sources that document these pieces. Mind you, I know these are said to exist but this is from sources that are questionable even without considering the GG events, much less usable here. We're not following policy if we have to balance mainstream coverage of the antiGG side (which is plentiful at this point) with blog posts, reddit threads, and twitter replies - that's the very definition of FRINGE problems. (Again, I will stress the point that others in the media have fully recognized that other media organizations do not see any of these attempts to clear the GG name/cause as positive or newsworthy as long as they have not fully distanced themselves from the few doing the harassment and death threats; we @ WP have our hands tied if they choose to ignore those for that reason) --MASEM (t) 00:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Add Eurogamer to the "official statement about GG" pile [44]. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And Game Informer [45]. Still no third-party source that highlights this current drive. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Local news

If only all of our sources were as reasoned and informed as this one. Willhesucceed (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Its decent, but very short and not very in depth. The real question is how reliable it is. I don't have a clue. Halfhat (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's this information:

Quotation:46/47 Robb Street, Lacytown, Georgetown, Guyana | Published by Guyana Publications Inc.

Here's a statement by Guyana Publications. They've been operating since 1997.

They're listed in the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce & Industry

This is evidence there's an editorial team.

You can click on a random newspaper here to check it out.

Mostly I wanted to include it here as an example of an article that is considered and divorced from extremity. There's no reason we can't strive to put together something at least as good as this. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It isn't good; it shows a superficial and tenuous understanding of the topic, which is about what one would expect from a small-town OpEd writer. Tarc (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That's rather harsh. The article seems to concede points to both sides of the debate and acknowledges that there's a lot of rumor-milling going on. This writer also points out the lack of clear unity within Gamer Gate, which really is an important aspect of the controversy, as it appears to be the reason this article is having such a hard time writing anything about what Gamer Gate supporters are attempting to do. If this article could even establish that much for the readers, I think a lot of people would be happier. YellowSandals (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that local sources, if they are the only group reporting on that side of the issue when the other side is fully documented by national/international sources, means that side of the issue falls within WP:FRINGE. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

IWell there was also the Guardian article. Halfhat (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Halfhat, would you add that article below to Media criticism? Willhesucceed (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Gjoni

Apparently, Gjoni has stated that he regrets that things have gotten this frenzied, but also that he would do it again. Should this be integrated into the article somehow? Other interesting points: the stress has caused him to resign from his job, and he doesn't actually care that much about games. DS (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Arguably no, but I'm not fully decided on that. In our narrative, the faster we get off that initial accusation and to what has developed since is key; Quinn still remains very much in the spotlight compared to him as to explain why we give Quinn more discussion. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe there are four or five of these sources. I'm not going to track them down, but others could. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of the press

RealClearPolitics

Vice

Assange criticised the media. See below.

I stumbled onto, of all things, two conservative US sites actually covering Gamergate. I'm surprised. Free Beacon and Townhall

Then there are the other sources: BBC Business Matters 1 and 2, Forbes (pointed to by Washington Post), TechCrunch, Slate, Reason, Spiked, Pocketgamer.biz, Ryan Smith, Cinemablend (another article I'm not going to go looking for, but it exists), Spectator, Metaleater.com, HuffPost Live, MediaBistro

Willhesucceed (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, you're digging up old dirt, when the rest of us have moved on to newer sandboxes. many of those links are 4-6 weeks old, and since then, reliable sources have moved away from the faux ethics concern and into the harassment and the more recent terror threat at Utah St, for example. "The media is biased!" is a fading trope. Tarc (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what age has to do with it. Sure, other things will be given more weight now, but this does deserve some sort of mention. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think you understand at all. It is similar to the "journalists collude via mailing list!" that was debunked a ways back. We could go find many of these same sources that screamed about that topic when the "story" broke, thinking they found their silver bullet to take down the "social justice warriors". Those initial articles are still out there, but they are obsolete and look rather silly in the wake of the the debunking. Sources form early/mid-September that carp about it just being a pile of biased media fluffing up the harassment angle look pretty silly when you read the October sources about terror threats. Tarc (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree this is "old dirt". This is identifying a valid criticism (but not a point of the proGG ethics, necessarily) that gaming media have, like other entertainment sources, an urge to review and cover art-house type works over mainstream works, and as such this is marginalizing the coverage of the core AAA games in favor of these. Neither article asserts this is corruption of journalism in the manner proGG have claimed, but it is a valid point of why the proGG side is critical of how indie games seem to have much coverage nowadays. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what? "Core AAA" games get reviewed on every gamer website major and minor, along with having millions in advertising budgets. There hasn't been an hour gone by this year where we haven't seen tv ads for Titanfall, Destiny, GTA 5, and so on. I was under the impression that GG's faux beef was over art-house/casual games being given favorable reviews period, not that those reviews were crowding out the AAA's. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It is the logic thread of these writers speaking for the proGG voice, not necessary proven fact. More time for indie == less time for AAA, being the logic, and then expanding that this means that AAA games will wane. (There's certainly some holes there, but that's not our place to poke them). This correlates with the idea of the male gamer demographic being outnumbers by females drawn to mobile/casual titles. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, I feel like you're deliberately avoiding all the other articles I provided. I also added the Assange criticism. Clearly the criticism is more than "they're talking too much about indies!" It's also, "The press is biased and isn't doing its job!" Willhesucceed (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Assange's criticism is completely separate from these ancient articles on the vague understanding of what gamergate wanted to say about coverage of themselves in the press.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It ties in directly to charges of corruption and collusion. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Except there weren't any until Assange insinuated there were.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, BBC Business Matters doesn't know what it's talking about. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not listening to directly linked podcasts. Transcripts. Please.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

They're 5-10 minutes segments. First one starts at ~17:00, and the important part for the second one starts at ~20:45. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Gjoni concern

One thing I keep coming across over and over is statements to the effect of "Gjoni alleged Quinn slept with people for gain", but that's patently false. In fact, he went out of his way to state that he wasn't making that claim. It's a curious thing. I don't know how this misinformation has spread so far and high.

Just wanted to give a heads up to head off incorrect information being put in the article. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It does speak to the lack of care that the press have put into researching the controversy. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you care to point out where in the article it says this? Tarc (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't say this- we point out he claims she cheated on him, and added claim she did it for positive coverage came from others. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I know the article doesn't say this, I'm pointing it out just in case. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It has been in the article at various points, but we've removed it when added. There are similar incorrect claims about his posts, which generally the wording here has been able to avoid. - Bilby (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)