Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

KotakuInAction moderators misogynist/anti-feminist/interested in female subjugation porn

A simple investigation by BuzzFeed determines that seven out of 10 KotakuInAction moderators are also moderators or frequent participants in sub-Reddits such as "struggleporn," "breakfeminazis," "ProlapseVille," "WhatFeministsLookLike" and other forums described by BuzzFeed as "devoted to either the physical and emotional degradation and humiliation of women, or in subreddits devoted to mocking and delegitimizing the arguments and appearances of feminists and 'social justice warriors'." This leads BuzzFeed to conclude that "a look at the online behavior of the moderators of KotakuInAction reveals a community largely guided by a group of people who participate in and moderate subreddits devoted to the physical degradation of women and the mockery and the ridicule of feminism" and "the online activity of its representatives undermine the subreddit’s stated premise and reveal it as a well-orchestrated front for a woman-hating goon squad."

I find Masem's alleged sourcing concerns to be a non-issue; if we're accepting Forbes contributor blogs which are not even edited, then surely an editorially-vetted news post by a BuzzFeed staff member is a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is not a reliable source per WP:RS/N, and as specific names are given, you've entered a unfounded BLP claim based on an unreliable source. And while you brought up Forbes, they are not thoroughly vetted but people like Kain have demonstrated past editorial standards on their own. That said, I'm all for removing weak RSes in this like those Forbes blogs if other sources can replace that. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case, we should remove the 2 (3?) Buzzfeed articles we're using right now. Kaciemonster (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Anything on Buzzfeed in this article is from a staff member and not some random user submited contribution. Such sources should be allowed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The article suggested here is by a staff member. Kaciemonster (talk)

I am fully aware. I am arguing for inclusion. And there has been no discussion on WP:RSN saying "don't use Buzzfeed staff member posts".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be. If it's unreliable, it's not going to suddenly be reliable because there is no proof of editorial control and the vested consensus in WP:RSN that it is an unreliable source. Tutelary (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No one has ever argued that it was unreliable. If pieces exclusively by staff members have editorial oversight (there is a team of editors and such) then it meets WP:RS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Buzzfeed as a whole is considered unreliable, as they are established as a click-bait site. And as for the other Buzzfeed articles, they are not uniquely supporting any statement or quote on the article, so they can be removed without loss of proper sourcing. But back to this specific article, it is laying out accusations against named individuals simply based on a site's profile; this is a straight-up BLP violation. --MASEM (t) 19:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not. What part of BLP is violated by a reliable source describing people who moderate anti-feminist and misogynist forums as anti-feminist and misogynist? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a "clickbait" article on Buzzfeed. It's a news post from one of their staff members. It is only naming people's pseudonyms on the website. I seriously doubt that anonymous people are protected from WP:BLP.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't find any consensus discussion on RSN considering BuzzFeed an unreliable source. It has an identifiable editorial structure and is widely cited by other outlets. There is no BLP issue in republishing what Reddits someone moderates. I'm also unaware that Kain has "demonstrated past editorial standards" anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know of this is usable, but it certainly shouldn't surprise anybody. Artw (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

See also These Are the Creepy 4Chan Successors Behind Gamergate's Pathetic War, to a lesser extent the strip bar article and anywhere there are screen caps of the various GG/MRA boards such as We Hunted The Mammoth. Artw (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Any such implication or the like that these moderators (living people) are horrible people would be a BLP violation, straight and simple. Tutelary (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If they are not named people then how can WP:BLP protect them? It's another anonymous and nebulous group.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The article names admins; even if that's an online user name and no clear connection to their real name, that's still a BLP issue; even named "admins" (which are advertized on the KIA reddit) would be a BLP problem. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous online identities cannot possibly be protected by BLP. Not to mention that we do not explicitly list any names on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to explain what part of BLP prohibits us from discussing reliably-sourced statements of people's activities and ideologies. What part of the policy prevents us from saying "According to BuzzFeed, this person is a moderator of "struggleporn," which BuzzFeed says is misogynist? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to all living persons, notice how it says 'ALL', not 'except for anonymous online identities', living persons. If there's a living person behind that account, it's encaptured by BLP. North, it's because Buzzfeed is not a reliable source and the assertion itself falls afoul of BLP. The matter of there Buzzfeed being in the article wasn't rubber stamped by any editor except the person who added them. It probably wasn't noticed within all the edit warring, protections, edit summaries, and sheer edit volume. I'd imagine it was just overlooked. It still should be removed. Tutelary (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a news article written by a staff member of Buzzfeed, one that has to have been vetted through their editorial process. There are no arguments at any point on WP:RSN that Buzzfeed staff member pieces are not reliable. Per WP:BLP this is a reliably sourced, neutral POV adhering, not-original research addition that cites that someone went through the KotakuInAction moderation team and found that several of them were moderators of other forums that excusively denigrate women. That is all we are saying about it on Wikipedia. An anonymous group of people that we do not specifically identify are being listed in the source and it does not violate WP:BLP to present the information as NorthBySouthBaranof did.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Pointing out a loophole on how people on WP:RSN discussed something by without the qualifier 'a staff approved article' and trying to drive it by a reliable source based on that I think is not alright. They were arguing for the entire source itself, all articles and the like, and came to the conclusion that Buzzfeed is not a reliable source in nearly every context. (barring the 'personal opinion of it of course'. ) The fact that an unreliable source has written an article about a living person and trying to say that it 'X person denigrate's women' is the nature of the BLP violation here. In any case, I have another concern; What does this have to do with GamerGate? Tutelary (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Because there's a difference on Buzzfeed between everything clickbaity here and their dedicated news section. Buzzfeed is used extensively on Wikipedia as a source in articles. You do not get to contest it just because it paints the side you've taken in these matters in an unfavorable light. And there are zero discussions on WP:RSN that support your conclusions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What it has to do with GamerGate is self-explanatory in the article; the people who moderate one of GamerGate's lead organizing forums are demonstrably linked with misogynistic sentiments and the celebration of degrading women. And please don't go "well they aren't GamerGate," because yeah, we just explained in the article that 8chan and KotakuInAction are where GamerGate organize. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, here's the deal. You've spent oodles and oodles of words on this page trying to prevent us from describing GamerGate as misogynist because "we don't have sources that say GamerGate is misogynist." Then when sources point out specifically how members of GamerGate who moderate GamerGate's organizing forums are verifiably linked with anti-feminist and misogynist sentiments and interest in the subjugation and degradation of women... you instantly try to throw out a source that has already been used in this article repeatedly without comment or objection. The disingenuity here is obvious. You just don't want anything negative said about GamerGate. That ship has sailed, "based Masem." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Calm down NorthBySouthBaranof, trying to keep a noon biased article is not biased. That you want to show the world how bad Gamergate does not give you the right to use the wikipedia-page to do it. I suggest that you take step back now:::--Torga (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ohai there Torga, I don't take orders from GamerGate socks, thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you take orders from Anti-gamergate socks, that desperately wants to make this about misogny.--Torga (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It is about misogyny. Did you miss Colbert last night? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

For one, I'm not tracking this article every waking moment, and so if the Buzzfeed articles got in while I wasn't watching, they got it; now that I'm aware they are there, I'm point out they should be removed as very weak sourcing. But you have ccompletely mistated what I'm saying. You can state that GG is percieved as misogynistic by the press, that's very clear and unavoidable, you simply cannot state "GG is misogynistic" without any other qualification because that makes in WP's voice, and we do not take sides in any type of issues like this. This article is riding that line extremely close and it needs to be brought back towards the more neutral (not balanced, just neutral) tone. Let the press and the GG supporters yell at each other. We are here to simply summarize that both sides have issues with the other, with one side having much more predominate points to make over the other. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note we absolutely do not do "both sides" style reporting here, see WP:UNDUE. Artw (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes we do, since more than enough RS have given enough weight to the GG side (even if they disagree with them) to cover that side in a neutral manner. We will never be 50/50 on a content level, but we can neutrally cover both sides. The UNDUE argument is long since invalid given much of the sourcing that has come up over the last week, and more appearing to be coming in the future --MASEM (t) 19:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all the sourcing that describes GamerGate as riddled with misogynistic harassment, you're right. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There is also plenty of sources that talks about the actual earnest efforts of the movement. We cannot pretend that doesn't exist because some portions of the press have opted to ignore it or consider it a false front. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much all the sources say that those efforts are nothing more than a front for misogynistic harassment. I'm sorry Masem, but you just can't deny the crushing, impossible weight of reliable sources anymore. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent (like, last 2 days) sources that give at least some validation to the proGG side: Slate, BBC (including Quinn!) WAPost. Yes, there are other sources that are basically ignoring any more proGG matters (primarily those in the VG area), but you cannot argue that all the sources have. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is a very week source, Huffington Post or lower tier. Find something better. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I find that interpretation of those sources extremely questionable. Artw (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing at all wrong with using Huffington as a source, your swipe at them is meritless. As for Buzzfeed, there are several claims of "not a reliable source per WP:RSN, yet in the archives I see only a single 3 yr old thread that was hardly conclusive. Would some of the "per RSN"'ers care to elaborate? Tarc (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is like Huffington in that we don't yet have a strong history of editorial control and fact checking; Buzzfeed started about a year ago to get past its "borrowing content" approach and develop better practices, but they still are well established as a clickbait site (putting up articles that catch your eye on twitter or other sources that may not really have much content or not written with strong journalistic integrity). They are getting better in developing a history, but they are not there yet. As such, they are a weak RS that should be replaced if the source is not needed/duplicated by others (the pre-existing BF articles in here), or avoided if the details are not critical. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Those are fine opinions, but not the basis to take action unilaterally. You also claimed "per RSN" above, which does not appear to match the reality of what is found in the RSN archives. Also also, many Wikipedia articles use buzzfeed as a source, so I'm seeing very little weight behind the insistence by you and Tutelary that the material is problematic. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This also identifies a KotakuInAction moderator as the moderator of another "rape fantasy" subreddit. That seems to support the allegations put forward in Buzzfeed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm iffy on using BF myself, for the reasons Masem details right above me. I do think the instant something stronger appears (I see it's been used elsewhere on wehuntedthemammoth, but that DEFINITELY fails RS).. it should be replaced.. My thoughts would be to use that ref with the following line: "An investigation by BuzzFeed noted that several moderators of the reddit subgroup"KotakuInAction", which is one of the major gathering areas for GamerGate supporters, also either moderated or were regular participants in groups with anti-feminist or misogynistic names". Salon might be better, but I also have concerns about that as RS. It is undoubtedly Left-slanted, and should be used sparingly, as we would a right-slanted site. SirFozzie (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Being a moderator of a forum that has a attribute of X does not mean one has the attribute of X as well. That's a leap of logic we can't take. It can be observed but then Willhesucceed's point above "what does this have to do with anything?" applies. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

When it's been established that KIA is where GamerGate aggregates, then its moderators being moderators for several anti-women boards does have to do with Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And? That's an interesting fact, but it doesn't change anything. The Buzzfeed article would like to imply this is clearly a bad thing for them to be admins there, but we can't take that step. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If moderators on boards called "breakfeminazis" or a board dedicated to Gor are behind the moderation team of the main pro-Gamergate board, then it does suggest that they hate women, or at the least are anti-feminist.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that is a leap of logic we cannot take without an reliable secondary source making the claim for us. It is comparable to the claim that GG is misogynistic because the harassment focused on women, without the addition of numerous secondary sources making that leap for us. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The source does make that leap. Two of them, actually. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the BF doesn't - it gets about as close to say "X is misogynistic because of this admin", but it actually doesn't make the claim. But let's assume they do, then the issue falls back, is this a BLP issue. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Fozzie, so now that Salon has also drawn a connection between a person who is both a moderator of Kotakuinaction and of a "rape fantasy" forum there, I think the case is clearer. As multiple sources have now connected the A-to-B dots here, I think we're on solid ground for at least some brief mention. Tarc (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I propose An investigation by BuzzFeed noted that several moderators of the reddit subgroup"KotakuInAction", which is one of the major gathering areas for GamerGate supporters, also either moderated or were regular participants in reddit subgroups with content that the site described as "devoted to the physical degradation of women and the mockery and the ridicule of feminism." BuzzFeed argued that this demonstrated the group's misogynistic roots. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we're flying into WP: BLPGOSSIP territory here. Is there any relation of these moderators to Gamergate other than their reddit is allowing discussion to take place there? --Kyohyi (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Kyohyi.. as the BuzzFeed articles state, KiA is a very public face of GG, and is noted as being one of the primary gatherings of GamerGate supporters. And Masem: It seems to me like this would be a pretty good buttress in the section "Role of misogyny and antifeminism" in the article. SirFozzie (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Kyohyi, a movement can't just keep claiming that everyone associated with it isn't part of it when it's convenient for the movement to do so. That's No true Scotsman territory. Either you're a movement or you're not, and if you're moderating one of two main forums used by that movement... yes, you're going to be linked to it. Numerous sources discuss KotakuInAction as a GamerGate organizing center.

Wikipedia, on its own, cannot make the leap that "if you're a moderator of a forum used by GamerGate to organize, you're part of GamerGate." That would be WP:SYNTH. But we are not prohibited from republishing reliably-sourced synthesis. Indeed, that is precisely the role of a secondary source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Rewritten.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This piece feels really does not feel like it has an importance to the article. It is trying to slander a few individuals and make statements that are against BLP to list. They are trying to pin 'Misogyny' on satire subs (TiA, which makes fun of tumblr post and radical feminism), and peoples porn preferences, without even knowing who these people are, without having talked to them, and without having any statements from them. It feels so much like people are pushing a POV to shoehorn this in, to once again, use this article as a soapbox. For those saying it isn't a BLP issue because its under pseudonames, ZQ is not ZQ's real name, yet people continue to call BLP issues on her. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Is her legal name important? No. Has it been suggested that GamerGate is full of anti-feminists and misogynists using GamerGate to further their crusade against women rather than having any actual interest in video game journalism? Yes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Are the legal names of the moderators important? No. Has it been suggested that they, as individuals, are women haters. Yes. Thats what makes this a BLP issue. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Is that what the content that was added to the article, either originally by NorthBySouthBaranof, or the modifications added by myself suggest? No. It just connects people who mdoerate KIA with moderators or "rape fantasy" subredits and anti-feminism subreddits.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

How does that add anything to the article? At all. That is seriously just a way to shoehorn in the, "These people are women haters, we just are not saying it blatantly." Who cares what type of porn they like? The subreddits they listed also are subs that make fun of radial feminism, which is easy to look up. As people have continuously said before, many of these quotes that are being added in are being used to try to get a one up on pro-gg people, instead of adding to the article. Hell, it still is a BLP issue to, because of the way it is trying to infer that they hate women. It doesn't freaking matter. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is because the idea that GamerGate is a front for hating women is mentioned by many sources. There may be people who seriously think that video game journalism ethics are the goal, but there are still people on the outside looking in that identify an anti-feminist and misogynist streak, particularly with the anti-feminist and conservative right-wing bigwigs the movement has absorbed into itself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't -matter-. You are trying to single out individuals and making a "We aren't saying it, but we really are" statement about those individuals in a negative manner, and that is against BLP. Again, who cares what type of porn they like? There is no reason for that to be in the article, unless you want to put every pro-GG's person sexual preferences in the article, also. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Does the rewrite do anything like that? It's pointing out that two sources independently identified content they found to be questionable when regarding GamerGate's statements and the history around it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

YES! Again, it is trying to shoehorn in a "We aren't saying it, but we really are" statement. This is against BLP. Hell, we have no information about these moderators, and this article is trying to label them as woman haters, as well as are the people trying to push that edit through. Sexual preferences have no place in this article, since you cannot infer anyones questionability over that. Hell, I could give some anecdotal evidence and say I was part of a BDSM community before, have seen some scary shit, and everyone loved everyone. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This piece is just a smear job, and yet it's being added despite several protests. Someone tries to be bold and edits to remove bias, and they're reverted without conference. Then someone adds a smear piece to the article and plays guard dog to keep it in. I think that the losers with this Wiki article happen to be anyone who's approaching the thing with a passive, civil nature. YellowSandals (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not the fault of Wikipedia that the public at large takes this stance on such a recent topic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And sadly it appears you do speak for Wikipedia because nobody has been able to stop you. You were recommended to take a short break from the article and otherwise, apparently, this is all just splendid. YellowSandals (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have issues with my behavior, this is not the forum to discuss it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbBreak

While this edit is appreciated to defuse / better back the statement (while we affirm BLP issues), the approach that statement takes again points to the issues in the past I've pointed to about layering on subtle attacks / thumbing ones nose at the proGG side that this article does not need. You don't need both quotes; you can use just the Salon one, or a single word "anti-feminist" (I think the BF article used that), that makes the point clear without introduce more degrading language that is clearly only present to affect the tone of how this is read. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet it would still be removed despite being sterilized as much as it could. BuzzFeed is a reliable source. Salon is a reliable source. The Devil's Advocate, there is no reason to remove this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The Salon statement is a single vague statement that doesn't even seem clearly verified. You are really just using it to justify giving weight to a single article that actually discusses this in-depth.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Two articles discuss moderators of KIA being involved in several other subreddits that they found questionable. It's verified. It's justified. BLP does not protect groups of people.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP does protect the individuals that those articles are focusing on though. Again, sexual preference has no place in the article. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

But those individuals are not being mentioned by name and are instead being lumped together as a group. And I doubt "rape fantasy" is a sexual preference.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

ZQ isn't mentioned by her real name. Certain users ARE being focused on in that article, that is why its the "KiA Mods". "Rape fantasy" is a sexual kink, that falls into sexual preference. I mean, Female dominants must be misandrist if they have "rape fantasies", right? (That was rhetorical to show just why there is no basis for sexual preference to be included.) PseudoSomething (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What does Zoe Quinn's real name have to do with any of this? Why do you keep bringing it up? The fact of the matter here is that investigations were made by two sources and came to a conclusion that we are paraphrasing by noting the outside interests of people heavily invested in GamerGate that seem to exclusively focus on putting women down. That is all Wikipedia would be citing from both Salon and BuzzFeed. These people's online identities, separate from one person's pseudonym, are not protected by BLP, certainly not when they are being generalized as a group rather than the individuals within Wikipedia's voice.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I say it because of this, "But those individuals are not being mentioned by name" - Ryulong. Some of the KiA mods are being mentioned by name. It does not matter if it is a pseudoname, just like with ZQ. Using people's sexual preferences to call them women haters when we know nothing about them, is against BLP. Again, I have been apart of a BDSM community, I have a good friend, who is a woman, who enjoys her encounters more when the men scream in pain from it, this does not make her hate men. The non-sexual subreddits (example:TiA), make fun of extremist feminism, such as "Killing all men would make the earth a utopia" (not to mention, they make fun of redpillers, who are the opposite of extreme feminist.). This is a pure POV push to put that statement in there, and the 'revision' is just a way to shoehorn it in there and say, "See, we aren't -directly- saying it, but we sure are inferring it." PseudoSomething (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In the content originally added by NorthBySouthBaranof and then heavily modified by myself, no one is being singled out. No one screenname has been lifted from Reddit and used on this article. And there is an extreme difference between a pseudonym used in one's professional life and an online screenname. Groups of people are not protected under BLP. People who use screennames are not protected under BLP. This is all a stretch to avoid adding something that puts the pro-Gamergate side, as usual, in a bad light. It has been repeatedly criticized that the movement is a front for misogyny, anti-feminism, and right-wing activism, and the minute that people off of Wikipedia come up with evidence to support those accusations, suddenly Wikipedia cannot at all cover it because it is suggested that it vaguely violates a policy. There is no BLP violation. Just wikilawyering.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You have a very liberal interpretation of "groups of people". Is the band, Clutch, considered a "group of people" who are therefore individually exempt from BLP? If I wrote an article accusing Clutch of believing that watermelon is sexier than humans, does that not violate BLP because the four guys in the band constitute a "group"? This is wikilawyering at its most insidious, Ryūlóng. YellowSandals (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between a defined group of people that use their real names and a group of online pseudonyms.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No, its a pure BLP violation, except it isn't against someone who is anti-GG, so you are wikilawyering to keep it in. They are being singled out from the group, in your revision they are, and in the article they are being singled out even more. THEIR SEXUAL PREFERENCES HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE IN THE ARTICLE. This is not the place to shame them for having a sexual kink, as you are trying to, and it violates BLP. Seriously, again, if you think that their sexual kinks make them women haters, let me call my friend, who is a woman up, who enjoys the same type of stuff toward men, and let me tell her how much she hates men, even though she is married to one and dating one. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The proposed addition is not mentioning any of these Redditors by name. There is only a vague description of the subreddits rather than the exact names. And the sexual preference ones are not the only ones in question. There's anti-feminism ones being mentioned too. And I don't frankly care about your friend and her predelictions. You're going full apples and oranges here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that you really only have one article that really discusses this. The other article, which only makes a brief mention of it, is actually already cited in the "political views" section. You are devoting a lot of weight to the BuzzFeed article, when it is the only source that seems interested in the matter. I would say the "nature and organization" section is inappropriate for any such details as well.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, it is a BLP violation because you are implying negative things against certain people away from the group. They deserve just as much respect as others do. Also, it doesn't matter about the other subreddits, because implying they are women haters is against BLP. (Not to mention, the other subreddits make fun of -extreme- feminist, as in "Killing all men would make the world a utopia, its there for all to see. They also make fun of redpillers, the opposite of that). Its not apples and oranges, its the exact same thing, and you are kink shaming them. That is against BLP, and it is a stupid thing to do anyways. Singleing them "KiA" admins out because of an article that singles them out individually, and implying they are misogynist (Because, you know, if you don't like normal feminism, you are a misogynist anyway /sarcasm), is against BLP. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It states admins on a specific board, which is not private info (it's advertized on the board's front page), so it's not as anonymous as you might think. If it was just "board users" that would be sufficiently anonymous. --MASEM (t) 22:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The article does single out certain moderators, not just saying its the mods of a certain board. Even if they didn't, singling out certain people (like KiA mods) and calling them women haters because they have a sexual kink and make fun of extremism, that is a slander. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that Wikipedia is not singling out certain moderators in its summarization of the BuzzFeed piece and the Salon piece. It is not a BLP violation to mention that the public moderation team of one forum is involved with moderation of several other forums the author saw fit to note. These are not known people being mentioned on Wikipedia. It is an anonymous group that no one is particularly identified by their online pseudonyms either in BuzzFeed or on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

They are still people, and implying certain people (the KiA mods) are women haters from moderating subreddits is slander. As well as what The Devil's advocate said, "You are devoting a lot of weight to the BuzzFeed article, when it is the only source that seems interested in the matter. I would say the "nature and organization" section is inappropriate for any such details as well." There is no reason for people's sexual preferences to be in this article. Oh, and pseudonyms do matter, again, look at ZQ being called ZQ. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Remember, we're not even supposed to link to articles that are pure BLP violations, no matter how vanilla we can strip it down. I'd note that the salon piece wouldn't fall into this, because the claim is offhandly made and not the purpose of the piece, but the BF piece is specifically such, if this is determined to be a BLP. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet it is not a BLP violation. These are not known people with pseudonyms. They are anonymous people with pseudonyms identifying them as individuals that we are not discussing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It -is- a BLP violation, since these are individuals (PEOPLE) going by certain pseudonyms. Just because they are not publicly (EDIT: By this i mean widely) known does not mean they don't deserve the SAME RESPECT that BLP is set to give. Calling them women haters because of their sexual kinks is a BLP violation. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia calling them women haters? Is Buzzfeed calling them women haters? I don't see the phrase even remotely mentioned in their piece or in any of the attempts to cite this piece in the article. BuzzFeed lists some pseudonyms of people and their involvement in various other boards on the website that BuzzFeed has described as the following:

Indeed, a common thread among the moderators of r/KotakuInAction is that most of them moderate a constellation of subreddits wholly devoted to anonymously mocking the concerns, language, and appearance of people who identify as feminists.

And later

In all, seven out of ten of r/KotakuInAction’s human moderators either participate in or moderate subreddits devoted to either the physical and emotional degradation and humiliation of women, or in subreddits devoted to mocking and delegitimizing the arguments and appearances of feminists and “social justice warriors.” These online actions, while separate from r/KotakuInAction, are a far cry from a community that paints itself as the respectable face of GamerGate, unsullied by the rampant misogyny of unsavory fellow travelers.

How is any of this a BLP violation? They are not accusing anyone of women hating or king shaming anyone. They are pointing out the vein of anti-feminism and misogyny as stated by every other reliable source.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Women hater = Misogyny. Im using the definition. Buzzfeed does that. They are saying the mods are women haters because of their sexual kinks and their desire to make fun of extremism (even if it was all of feminism, it still does not pass BLP to call them women haters.). That article blatantly violates BLP, and as Masem said, we should not use it. Using the Salon article would be placing to much emphasis on a very very very very very small part of the article. Stop trying to kink shame people. PseudoSomething (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You are making a major semantic leap here. And how come when I argued that the mentions of the syringe sent to Milo Yiannopoulos were very very very very very small parts of the articles used to cite it I was wrong and we had to mention the syringe yet when you point out that the "rape fantasy" mention in the Salon piece is the same it's suddenly not allowed?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so now your pinning something I had nothing to deal with on me? Great. I try not to show up unless I have something significant to say. "Rape fantasy" doesn't mean someone hates the other gender, since both men and women have the fantasy on both sides of the issue. Implying someone hates women because they have a sexual kink or fantasy is against BLP (This would also mean you are saying women who have that fantasy toward men are man haters). PseudoSomething (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel like this is the end result of all the argumentation that Gamergate is immoral, with the core focus being on making the article reflect that. We finally just had a few editors crack, and they're bringing in personal smear pieces to bolster the assertion that Gamergate is "factually evil". This is the only logical place that a long moral battle could eventually wind up - because you can't prove what's going through people's heads, and eventually the only way you can sustain claims of "evil" is to start burying people in mud. All the while, screaming madly, "See! I told you they're evil!" as the people you bury suffocate. YellowSandals (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a "smear piece" to note that the people who moderate one of GamerGate's two most notable gathering places are also interested in a wide range of other misogynistic, anti-feminist and degrading-to-women topics. When the argument is that GamerGate is riven with misogynistic harassment and abuse and, in fact, is born of misogyny, linking those in positions of power with their personally-misogynistic beliefs is merely the gathering of evidence in favor of that position. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP also includes the talk page. Calling the moderators of KiA misogynist because of their kinks (which, by the way, are shared by both women and men) and their disagreement with extremist feminism (or feminism itself), is against BLPTALK. PseudoSomething (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a violation of BLP to describe something or someone as a source describes it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, you even went way past what the source said. Let me get some direct text for you. "Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to;" .... "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages". PseudoSomething (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, if that is the direction that reliable sources are going with the topic, then the Wikipedia follows suit. We reflect the world, we do not lead. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If all the reliable sources hurled themselves off a bridge, would you as well? There must be a line! YellowSandals (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're looking for an encyclopedia that ignores what reliable sources say, you're not in the right place. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Argumentum ad populum doesn't get you very far in life, I'm afraid. Try harder. Encyclopedia articles exist based on what the world at large has to say about a topic. Not what everyone has to say, otherwise the Wikipedia would just be an aggregator of blogs and youtube celebrities. We have to have standards, thus the project focuses on sources with a reputation for fact-checking an accuracy in reporting. Tarc (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is just sick. Sick in the head. It's becoming an inquisition. You're setting out to help destroy the reputations of individual people now, in the sole pursuit of proving to the world how evil they are. Maybe these people have evil intentions - I can't tell! But maybe, as Pseudo says, one of these people just has an uncommon kink. Maybe the others enjoy making light of extremism. This is not right, guys. No matter how you Wikilawyer it, it's damaging to depict individual people in a foul light like this, even if they use pseudonames. Would you not feel violated having your sexual interests aired on Wikipedia if we referred to you as "Tarc" and "NorthBySouthBaranof"? Could it not harm your standing among those who recognize you by those names? This is not justifiable! YellowSandals (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not chosen to involve myself in a very public movement to harass, threaten, drive out and generally make miserable women in video gaming.

Your stance on private information is rather convenient considering that the movement you stridently defend was launched by a jilted ex-boyfriend spilling his relationship drama on the Internet. GamerGate chose to make Zoe Quinn's sex life and personal relationships a public issue, which are now a permanent part of Wikipedia. It seems rather hypocritical to demand that external sources not make GamerGate supporters' personal belief and support of misogynistic and anti-feminist ideologies a public issue. Sauce for the gander, one might say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not defending the movement! These are individual humans! You've spent so much time with your head buried in the moral politics of this issue that you've gone completely blind! The righteousness you presume of your cause does not give you license to intentionally harm others! Exposing evil is not a public issues that Wikipedia endorses! YellowSandals (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, yeah, you are defending the movement, that's pretty clear from your edits here. That aside, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said we're here to "expose evil." But we are here to document what reliable sources say about GamerGate. If those reliable sources view GamerGate as a permanently-tainted cesspool of misogynistic harassment... then yeah, that's how the movement's going to end up being described here. My edits did not list individual pseudonyms or names, they merely discussed the fact that a media outlet has determined that some of the moderators of one of GamerGate's most popular forums hold similar positions in forums that feature content which can be charitably described as controversial, anti-feminist and misogynist. The media outlet argued that this fact supports the argument that GamerGate is inextricably linked to misogyny. That's all.

GamerGate has set out to destroy the reputation of Zoe Quinn, in the sole pursuit of proving to the world how evil she is. You seem to have no objection to our article's extensive recounting of salacious allegations about her personal and sex life, some of which are provably false. Why have you not called for the removal of that information, as it depicts an actual named individual person in a foul light? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if your edit didn't single any person out. As Masem said, the article violates BLP and can not be used. You also single people out by specifying the KiA mods. Also, sexual kinks are not misogynist (since both men and women share that kink, and are on on both sides of it), and being anti feminist (they are actually anti-extremist), doesn't make them misogynist. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem (and by extension yourself, TDA, and YellowSandals) is incorrect when it regards this source violating BLP. In both of the discussions on WT:BLP#Does BLP apply to persons only identified by their online username? and WP:BLPN#Gamergate controversy there is agreement that BLP does not protect groups or people with solely internet pseudonyms. I've restored the milder form of the section I had rewritten per both of those forums' explanations on BLP rather than Masem's attempt to play neutral moderator here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

WT:BLP doesn't agree [1]. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Dude, I just read both conversations. You are wrong. 100% wrong. Both say if it points out individuals, even with internet pseudonyms, that it would violate BLP. ON BOTH CONVERSATIONS. (Well, on one conversation he was taking the whole issue philosophically and said that was an issue.) Dude, you just BS'ed what those two people said. It is still a BLP issue, im reverting it. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No. The conversations clearly say BLP is not being invoked properly here by preventing this source and statement from being used. BLP does not cover sources themselves. BLP does not protect people Wikipedia is not talking about. BLP doesn't say "do not say bad things about people". It just says "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." and that's what has happened here. Stop using it to prevent this one thing from being said. Stop using it to say using "misogynistic" is a slur and should not be used to describe the movement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it clearly says its a BLP violation.

"Strictly speaking, the fact that(redated) and friends moderate or are active on subreddits that publish material that seems abusive to women does not automatically mean that they are misogynistic or that their conduct in the subreddit in question has been impartial, nor does the article even strive to prove the causality. If I'd were to look at it objectively, I'd say it's just a long ad-hominem, and something that we'd probably not allow in a biography to begin with."

"Well, the bigger issue as you said is the use of Buzzfeed as a source for contentious BLP material, but without more specifics I think the general answer is yes. The persons behind those pseudonyms are living persons (or we cannot reasonably assume that they aren't, though some may not be) and fall under this policy, whether they're specifically identified by their real names or not"

"but if there is confusion as to whether BLP applies or not, I would assume that it does and act accordingly."

Stop violating BLP. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no BLP violation. Wikipedia's policies do not protect people who you accuse are being maligned in the sources Wikipedia uses. And you are only citing one opinion posted on that page. Multiple other people have come forward and said that there is no violation in what has happened. Groups of people aren't protected. This group of Reddit administrators that Wikipedia is itself not naming are not protected. They might be individually if we called them out in the article, but that is not the case here. Sources are not BLP violations. This does not apply to this situation. Masem is wrong. You are wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

YES THERE IS, even per WP:BLT. You asked over there and disregarded everything that said it was a BLP issue from two uninvolved editors for one person who has been involved on this article (I believe). They are individually people and are treated with respect per BLP. Do not add it again. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not chosen to involve myself in a very public movement to harass, threaten, drive out and generally make miserable women in video gaming. There are many in GG that are in it to challenge ethics, and as our sources noted, are getting their effected tainted and drowned out by the vocal minority of the harassers. We cannot blame that group as a whole for those if we are staying appropriate clinically neutral , even if the press has decided to do so without any evidence (not observations) that this is the case. That's the entire problem with this article is that it needs to stay out of the mudslinging that the press is doing while still accurately reporting on their concerns and analysis, and the same for the proGG, writing everything neutrally in a proper Wikipedia voice that does not assign unfounded blame to any part involved save for the unknown identities of the specific individauls that harassed and sent death threats to the various individuals. We cannot assume the bulk of proGG is to be blamed, but we can point out the press is assuredly thinking this by a preponderance of sources. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There are many that say they are all about "but ethics", but again, the media is not buying it. Sooner or later you're going to have to give in and accept that reality, Masem. No offense, but you're getting a little Neville Chamberlain-ish at this point, steadfastly holding to a middle road when no one...literally...else is. It is one thing for any one of us to simply say redditor X is a Gamergater as well as a mod of rapefantasy; that sort of thing would obviously not fly. But now that the media...buzzfeed and salon so far...are making an issue of it, highlighting the hypocrisy of Gamergaters who profess to be sympathetic towards the women who have been harassed ("it wasn't us!") during all this while at the same time participating in the denigration of women online, then that's fodder for this article. Trust me, it's only a matter of time before one of these people gets the violentacrez'ed. So far, the harassers have been pretty damn lucky that none of em has been exposed publicly. Tarc (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the middle road; that is the whole purpose of the encyclopedia. There is a very clear way to write this in the neutral position using the same number and proportion of sources but simply backing on the excess blaming and criticism from the press to the proGG side when the same points have already been made. We'll still fully cover how the majority of the press has condemned GG and written them off, but since there remain sources that still discuss the proGG with earnest (I've linked 3 from the past 2 days earlier, that included Slate, BBC, and Wash. Post), we will still give them the time of day. Even if 100% of the sources wrote off the GG effort as a misogynistic front in their opinion, we would still be writing our article in a manner that disengages Wikipedia from speaking in that same voice. --MASEM (t) 00:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This is nothing but a push for radical extremism. Can you not see you've become the thing you think you're crusading against? "How dare those Gamergate fools harass women for their sexual conduct! Why just look at their sexual conduct!"

You're not even arguing for anything rational at this point. You're trying to bargain an eye for an eye. YellowSandals (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

We are not talking about private conduct here, but about moderation of public forums. Andreas JN466 01:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

How does someone's sex interests impact their forum moderating abilities? What does it have to do with Gamergate, even? This article is just trying to establish evil of these people and nothing more. It shows how terrible this thing has become that tying Gamergate to evil has become a sole excuse to include defamatory content. YellowSandals (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

How is it defamatory to say that these guys moderate these forums if that's what they do? Andreas JN466 01:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and post the issues here, I messaged the KiA mods about this situation (since its them we are talking about), and there are two problems. TheHat2 (which was specified in the article), was doxxed, so he isn't just behind a pseudonym anymore. That, and BZ basically infers all the mods to be men... well one of the mods of KiA and TiA is a, in her words, "I don't like to air it publicly because I'm figuring it out myself, but if I had to be the 'civersity hire' I'd be non-binary, female, bisexual." Big problems using that article, away from BLP issues. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not our fault that someone was doxxed over this. And I do not see anything in the BuzzFeed piece insinuating that the moderators are all men.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh wow, so someone gets doxxed and you don't care? This isn't a man just behind a pseudonym anymore, this is a person with his actual name out there. That is a pure BLP issue. Also, the BZ piece basically insinuates it, calling them misogynist and hating women, when in fact, one is a female. This throws this article into the, "Maybe their information is an ad-hominem" circle. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not someone mentioned in the piece is irrelevant as no where in Wikipedia's voice do I intend to refer to that person. BLP does not apply.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter... the -source- references him. That is the root of the problem. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources are not subject to WP:BLP.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP. " Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.". Also, per TheHat2, "May not be their fault, but I'm no longer afforded the protection of anonymity online..." PseudoSomething (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources themselves are not subject to WP:BLP. The fact that his identity has been revealed is immaterial to the content of this article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

PER WP:BLPSOURCE. "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.". This is pure tabloid. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbBreak 2

Let's get back to a key point: working on the assumption this is NOT a BLP issue, and we will take BF as a RS in conjunction with the Slate piece, what does this information add? Remember: all these articles claim is that mods of a certain forums are also mods of forums that have highly sexually-changed art that do not put women in a kind light, from a broad moral standpoint. So they moderate strange fetish forums (for lack of a better term). How does this exactly relate to Gamergate, without evoking OR? (A point to keep in mind: KIA was started before GamerGate started) --MASEM (t) 01:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Because they are mods for what has since become the Gamergate forum and we have multiple other sources pointing out that misogyny and anti-feminism are aspects of the movement, including BuzzFeed and Salon (not sure what Slate piece you're talking about). That is the connection.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Salon. Regardless, that's accusation by association, which is original research. Should we say any GG members that play the games that have been identified by, say, Anita's "Tropes ..." series as misogynistic because they enjoyed a game that was called misogynistic, like BioShock? (Pretty sure the answer is no). --MASEM (t) 01:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If KotakuInAction is identified by reliable sources as the go to place for GamerGaters, and reliable sources identify that the moderators of that forum, the people who decide what is and is not allowed, also moderate several other forums that the reliable sources feel are of note due to the nature of the content within, and reliable sources state that GamerGate has issues with said content, and these sources make all these connections themselves, then that is something we can say on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see how it is original research if the association and accusation are made by published sources. Ryulong is correct here. Andreas JN466 01:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that chain of logic is not established by the sources in that complete flow - parts of it, yes, but not the full case which is only inferred by tone and setup. You're making SYNTH connections that the sources do not explicitly state or would be considered routine by OR. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, then let's make sure that the article does not go beyond what the sources state. Andreas JN466 01:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Annnnd? That's my original point, let's assume we include all sourced statements, which basically say, the main GG board, KIA, has moderators that also also moderators of fetish boards. What does this have to do with the GG controversy? I know what leap of logic is being sought her (as to say that because these mods are mods of a board that could be taken as misogynistic, they must be misogyntistic themselves, and because they moderate the KIA board, that board must be misogynistic) but there's no logic trail that can be sources there at all. That's assumptions there's a connection. Without that, it's like adding "The sky is blue" randomly to this article with no reason, and as such does not belong. (and this is atop the BLP/RS issues). --MASEM (t) 01:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

BuzzFeed argues, In all, seven out of ten of r/KotakuInAction’s human moderators either participate in or moderate subreddits devoted to either the physical and emotional degradation and humiliation of women, or in subreddits devoted to mocking and delegitimizing the arguments and appearances of feminists and “social justice warriors.” These online actions, while separate from r/KotakuInAction, are a far cry from a community that paints itself as the respectable face of GamerGate, unsullied by the rampant misogyny of unsavory fellow travelers. [...] r/KotakuInAction may be scrubbed clean of the elements of GamerGate that have made the movement anathema to much of the culture, but the online activity of its representatives undermine the subreddit’s stated premise and reveal it as a well-orchestrated front for a woman-hating goon squad." Salon makes a similar argument. It's the sources that make this argument, not editors on this talk page. Andreas JN466 01:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That's where it's make a BLP claim that we're still evaluating: participation/administration of one of those side mods does not imply anything about the nature of the KIA mod, but the sources are making that assumption. It's certainly a bit troubling that they are in there, but you cannot call them misogynistic simply by participation. (It is not a BLP issue that they are KIA mods, or that they mod the other forums) --MASEM (t) 01:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a category error, Masem. It is not a BLP violation to report what a reliable source says about someone. No one is proposing that we state it in Wikipedia's voice - we are proposing to state that BuzzFeed has reached this conclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, the reliable source says what it believes it has to do with GamerGate. This is, by definition, not anything to do with WP:SYNTH because the conclusion is drawn directly from the source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Salon and Buzzfeed both identified that misogynists and anti-feminists make up the GamerGate movement, despite everyone's wishes that it was solely a movement to push for ethics in video game journalism, and they have identified that people in charge of GamerGate's primary meeting place are also in charge of forums elsewhere on the website regarding anti-feminism and pornography that exclusively denigrates women (but this could arguably not need to be mentioned in the article). They have made a connection between anti-feminism (and other things) with GamerGate. Instead of this separate paragraph in the middle of nowhere, would it instead be prudent to add a sentence onto the paragraph discussing Jilani's analysis of Yiannopoulos's involvement in GamerGate? Something along the lines of:

A BuzzFeed writer also found that many of the moderators of the KotakuInAction subreddit also served as moderators for various anti-feminist* and misogynistic subreddits.

*I'm not sure if "anti-feminist" or "anti-feminism" works here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I really can't see how that's still connected. "GG has misogynistic aspects per press", is fine, "KIA is one main GG site" is fine, "KIA mods also mod 'clearly misogynistic' boards elsewhere on Reddit" is fine (assuming that the opinion about the boards are made. But that says zero if the KIA mods are misogynistic themselves, or how that relates to the GG population as a whole. --MASEM (t) 01:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Am I making any of those insinuations with my piece? I am suggesting that the above sentence be added to the paragraph under "political stance" or whatever it's called to accompany the Zaid Jilani piece.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fine. The connection made by the sources is obvious. There is stuff in the sources that could be used to make it explicit, but it doesn't seem necessary. At any rate, what Ryulong has proposed above does not go beyond the sources. Andreas JN466 01:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are insinuating something if its not clearly connected, as it tries to paint an entire 10,000+ movement by the actions of 7 people, which you simply cannot do. --MASEM (t) 02:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to again state that there is a BLP issue here, so nothing should be written on the main article about this, until there is clear indication that it is not. We have had uninvolved editors say it is, so I would say, since it even -could be- a BLP issue, we should not keep it. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The thing about it is the Salon piece is already referenced in the article with details about KiA mentioned. The problem with the addition by Ryulong is much more basic than BLP. My opinion is that this is not a BLP issue, but it is a question of NPOV and due weight. Ryulong originally tried to add a lengthy paragraph, which was way undue, but even the smaller segment was problematic in its size given the minimal sourcing on the matter and the use of direct quotes. It implied the statements about the nature of the subreddits were true. Salon source appears to be making a bit of a misrepresentation based on one Redditor's characterization of a subreddit and the other is mostly just latching onto the fact that some of the moderators may have a weird fetish.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I posted just a little bit up there, but TheHat2, which was specifically referenced in the article, has been doxxed, so his real name and info is out there. He isn't just a pseudoname behind a screen anymore, so an article calling him misogynist is pretty against BLP. It is pretty NPOV though, since fetishes are fetishes and don't say anything about the person, and it all seems like, as someone said, an ad-hominem. This adds nothing to the article, and basically calls them misogynist and hateful to women.... just by looking at their fetishes. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources are not restricted by BLP if they happen to say something bad about someone. And whether or not one of the persons mentioned in the piece was doxxed does not make it a BLP issue, again. And their fetishes are not the point of contention. It is generalizing the various other boards involved as anti-feminist and misogynistic. Not picking out any particular pornographic predeliction. Stop finding excuses not to use the content.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the other boards, then go look at them and their wildly free information. They make fun of extremism in the feminism community. TiA even makes fun of redpillers, the people who think they are above women. None of that is Misogynist, and calling them Misogynist because they make fun of extremism (or even feminism, since disliking feminism isn't Misogyny) is wrong. Other than it being a BLP issue because the article states that all those mods are Misogynist and degrade women. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't an issue with the intended addition.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

THIS IS A HUGE ISSUE. You don't just get to say, "Its not an issue" to whatever you want to put in. Your sentence is infering that the moderators of KiA are misogynist. That is NPOV, is against BLP, and honestly, not needed in this dang article. Just like people have said before, this article has a NPOV issue (Redacted) You don't get to group 7 people into the 'woman hating' circle because of 1 article that provides no evidence of it. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

While I've seen some articles today making KotakuInAction kinda reliable (though there still isn't mentions of 8chan which has got more mentions on media), this is a blatant BLP violation, and I can bet if it was me or another not so known editor I would have been banned for far less. It seems the BuzzFeed writer went with the intention of making a case against KiA being a misogyny central of harassment and bomb threats but found only informative links, so he attacked the admins for their fetishes and trolling. Loganmac (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The writer pointed out that several mods of KIA are also mods of other boards he found questionable. You can look deeper into the meaning as much as you want but that violates WP:OR.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is a reliable source. The author of the piece in question is a staff writer, he represents the company, if he's committing libel, the publication is on the line. That said, this KiA moderation posts offers very little, it's one piece of writing and one sentence. Compared to the entire litany of Gamergate material, it is fringe stuff (I mean, it's a fucking subreddit, not even a big one). New York is reliable too, but I don't think their coverage of what the 8chan core get up to on a weekend is of any relevance.[2] - hahnchen 02:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is a huge point, even if you take away the BLP, there is no significance to this, and is only being used to push a POV. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It was my understanding that "subreddit" just refers to any singularly themed board on Reddit itself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hahnchen, the article is far more than one sentence. [3] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I know that. That 8chan article is more than one sentence too. "One sentence" is Salon's passing reference. - hahnchen 03:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Since we're going to use Buzzfeed as a source now, I'm going to revisit all the sources I was told were too weak to be placed in the article, and include them. And none of you had better complain. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Willhesucceed... that's not how this works. Bring your sources to WP:RSN if you want to discuss their reliability. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

We're including Buzzfeed and excluding Reason. How is this happening? Willhesucceed (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Last I checked Reason, Techcrunch, HuffPo, et al. were being used in the article along with BuzzFeed (but not this particular piece from BuzzFeed). You really need to calm down.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop talking about other editors here on the article talk page, it violates the expected standards of conduct, and if continued, users may be sanctioned per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate. Dreadstar ☥ 07:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Buzzfeed is now considered more reliable than Reason, Techcrunch, and the Huffington Post? Really? REALLY? Willhesucceed (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Not only is Ryulong using Buzzfeed, but he's using it to bring in a fringe matter. DOES NOBODY CARE ABOUT MAKING A GOOD ARTICLE? Willhesucceed (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Relax, Willhesucceed. It doesn't do you any good to work yourself up into a rage. Take a break from the article. This stunt was a pretty big blow-up and I'm pretty sure most of us would have been shuffled on out of here for trying something like it. It's... been insightful as to what, exactly, is the mindset behind some of the article's problems, at least. YellowSandals (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Gawker also comments on the fact that a kotakuinaction mod also heads disreputable, misogynist ones such as breakfeminazis, "a violent rape-fantasy subreddit that focuses on feminists, including game critic Anita Sarkeesian". So now that we have 3 sources...Buzzfeed, Salon, and Gawker...it is getting a bit harder to ignore. Tarc (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Not really - it's making the same claim (before BF, so it's novel there) but without explaining why in explicit words even though the tone of the article is certainly implicating something; that is, it identifies those users as mods of other boards, but it leaves to interpretation why this even could be a bad thing. So no reason to include (atop the issue that this is after GG has set its sights hard on Gawker making them a dependent source as well as being a weak RS prior to that). --MASEM (t) 13:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Not so much a claim as an observable fact. The so-called "mainstream Gamergaters" claim they condemn the misogynistic harassment of Quinn et al, yet several of these nominal "mainstream Gamergaters" are also most of misogynistic internet forums. That's very A-to-B hypocrisy that 3 sources are now highlighting. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Gawker is generally not a reliable source on GamerGate. They are very much not a third-party, which is required for reliability. As noted before, we already mention this a bit in the political views section, so it should not be included more at this point.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The last thing we should be doing is including hypocrisy from weak RS , and certainly not in a WP voice , from other sites. No one has yet to say why it is bad that they are also mods of those other boards. The intent and implication is clear, but we're simply not able to make the leap of logic without avoiding OR. Arguably it is a FRINGE viewpoint given how some of the proGG side arguments are treated similarly. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Eh I think this one falls under wait and see. We don't cover the KotakuInAction subreddit in any great depth at the present time and until that changes I don't think we need to include this detail. Additionally given the level of churnalism going on I think its safe to say that time will give us better sourcing options than buzzfeed.©Geni (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There's been a response by one of the moderators of the KiA subreddit towards the accusations, I understand that it isn't a reliable source, but it interesting to read his take on being involved with questionable subreddits. JAK0723 (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not something relevant to the editing of this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a straight ad hominem attack and is irrelevant to the topic.Sy9045 (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Who are you saying this to?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Attacking the personal lives of a few people who support GamerGate is an ad hominem attack. It's irrelevant to this topic.Sy9045 (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This was not an attack on "the personal lives of a few people who support GamerGate". This was analysis by a writer of the public behavior of people in charge of a GamerGate meeting place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Last paragraph in the lead

In the last paragraph of the lead, we say:

“This move to recognize games as art prompted opposition from traditional "hardcore" gamers who view games primarily as a form of entertainment. The resulting culture war has led to harassment of female figures in the gaming industry. “

Can we attribute this to someone? “Hardcore gamers” isn't really a group that's come forward to explicitly state their views on anything. It's kind of a self described title. I was trying some minor cleaning of the lead, but wasn't sure what to do with the last few statements since they're broad and seem to be point-blank stating that hardcore gamers don't view their games as art and that a culture war is the root behind the harassment.YellowSandals (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It was attributed before nearly every single reference was removed from the lede. Just go back into the article's history and find it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, 99% confident we can find a source if pressured. Likely in the Background section if we need an explicit one. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean can we change it to establish who said this? It reads as a theory or opinion, so we should establish who is proposing that hardcore gamers don't view their games as art. I've seen numerous game reviewers discuss the concept of games as art, and it was a major source of contention when Roger Ebert claimed games could never be art. The "games are art" thing has been a debate going on for... I don't know - years, probably. Ever since they've started to become more story-based and cinematic. Roger Ebert first said that some time in 2007 or so. YellowSandals (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, regarding the "female indie video game developer" thing - when you use a bunch of conjunctive adjectives like that, the grammar gets easier to stumble over because the reader also needs to know they're all conjunctive. Originally I shortened it to "female game developer" because the grammar rules are less of a headache that way. YellowSandals (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Please only add cites in the lede for stuff that really needs it per WP:CITELEAD. Removing all of them gives us a good baseline. We should really only have 1-2 claims in the lede which are cited there. Protonk (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There is only one actual cite in the lede needed - that's the direct quote. We should make sure where we id "hardcore" gamers objecting to the changing market that that is well sourced (it should be already), but I really don't think we need it in the lead. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason NOT to have citations in the lead WP:CITELEAD clearly identifies that "controversial" material should be cited. EVERYTHING about gamergate is "controversial" and the misguided removal then leads to ADDITIONAL meaningless "discussions" like this. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a balance "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". As long as a reader can quickly scan through the article and find the sections with the challenged material, we should do that. However, if there an insistence to add sources, can we please use singular ones to the most recent, mainstream, summary-type articles to avoid twenty zillion refs in a row for a single point? --MASEM (t) 22:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ehhh, no. Citing everything in the lede because everything is controversial is pointless. We should cite especially controversial things and keep the lede readable. Let's not take an actually good re-write of the lede and slowly layer on the same crap that got us to that unreadable mess of a lead in the first place. As evidenced by the volume of this talk page, we're not likely to mollify someone about a controversial statement in the lede by putting a superscripted number after it, so let's not make the lede worse by attempting to do so. Protonk (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

At least with the articles I write, I tend to take the approach that for the lede, quotes should always be cited, and any other statement should either be cited directly or included in the body, with a citation there. It works for me and my reviewers, at least. Ironholds (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the BOLD rewrite without citations in the lead because in addition to the problem of making claims that are not easily verified by content and sources in the body gives WAY to much validity to the gamergaters self promotional claims while minimizing the third party analysis that contradicts the assertions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

BULLSHIT. All claims are verifyible from articles over the last few days. Three sentences out of about 12-15 is not an overwelming amount given that a fair number of sources try to give some creditable aspects of the gamegate movement. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems like your changes do nothing other than add a partisan tone and set back some of the readability cleaning the lead just recently had. I know we often discuss it here, but do we have any sources calling Gamergate, "leaderless, disorganized"? There is some organization, or else the consumer revolt aspect of the movement wouldn't be making any ground. I think the more concise word you're looking for is "decentralized". YellowSandals (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a concise paraphrase of the significant comments and criticisms laid by external sources about the movement's inability to come up with a coherent, unified manifesto or to seriously disavow the harassment under its name. The Washington Post calls it "leaderless" directly. New York magazine says "You guys refuse to appoint a leader or write up a platform or really do any of the things real-life, adult “movements” do." Slate says "Even Gamergate’s own members can’t stop their movement, since there’s no central authority." There are others, but here's three. If you have a better, concise way of articulating this issue, let's hear it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind - those are opinions and observations, but we cannot site as a fact that GG is leaderless, because it hasn't been proven one way or another. We do let press opinion (whom are involved in this) dictate the facts. We certainly can state they see GG as leaderless, and thus having no obvious message, just not state the leaderless aspect in WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Who is the leader? Show one source to contradict the multiple that have cited it as leaderless. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"not being able to cite who leader is" != "not having a leader". --MASEM (t) 15:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

and so again, you are attempting to put forth that we ignore multiple reliable sources because ..... ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Did I say anything about throwing out RSes? We can site that they believe that GG is leaderless and leading to why no one seems to be taking them seriously, that's a strong proportion of sources that back that. We just cannot take the step to say, in WP's voice, GG has no leader. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:ASSERT nope, they are not "mere opinions" and we do not present them as such particularly when there is no evidence or reliable sources to the contrary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Masem, what source specifically would you consider reliable for this claim? Kaciemonster (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

We could just state it as an opinion held, it's considered fine to do that in the lede.Halfhat (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:ASSERT Nope. We dont mollify as "opinion" what has been stated as fact by multiple reliable sources with NO reliable sources making any claim the otherwise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The sources are not stating it as fact, they are giving their impression of the leaderless as an opinion. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: @Masem: How about "With no clear leader or organization the movement has hitherto been unwilling or unable to distance itself from continued harassment."? If I was really bold I would go with this since since it avoids speculating on motives "With no clear leader or organization the movement has been unable to distance itself from continued harassment." -- Strongjam (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

On re-read I'm not sure if I like the second one anymore. "Unable" without "unwilling" gives the impression an attempt was made. Maybe just "... has not distanced ..."? I'm not married to it though. -- Strongjam (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And again we're back to debating over how to delicately add in nonsense that shouldn't even be presented this way. It's a decentralized movement, yes, but it's about time we stop adding in comments and other frustrating elements that do nothing but create controversy and raise questions. The lead was impartial, useful, and didn't raise any questions before. Now it's changed because it "gave Gamergate too much credit", and we're quibbling over the nuances of the phrasing because there's no sensible way to write a balanced article in this manner. YellowSandals (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Salon's response to David Auerbach's piece

This is basically Salon's response to the Auerbach piece:

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/01/gamergates_infuriating_myth_why_searching_for_common_ground_is_a_big_mistake/

It also in general touches on the problems of trying to find a middle ground in situations such as these, according to the author.

Which section would best fit the "middle ground/common ground" argument? Sookenon (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Likely under Media Response. There's a few older sources that describe other reporting difficulties that could go there too. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong has already contributed something good enough while I was trying to come up with a draft. In that case, I've also added a direct quote. Sookenon (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The full quote is a bit much.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

We should include details from Auerbach's piece there if we are going to be adding a response.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Anil Dash-Cernovich paragraph

So Ryulong has used two sources, only one of which even gives the matter much attention and is a weak source at that, to insert a whole paragraph accusing a named person of bribery. There are various issues of WP:UNDUE, WP:TROLL, and WP:POINT in play, but I think I need only point to the section he added it to give you an idea of what is so horribly wrong with what was added.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Bribery is not a criminal offense. I don't know where else in the article it fits because you saw fit to remove it from the "harassment" section. Perhaps it's more related to the "Operation Baby Seal" section where it's since been moved. TechCrunch does vaguely refer to it, but then again if the extremely vague mentions of Milo Yiannopoulos being sent a syringe are allowed, then this should be just as fine.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It's using weak sources (TechCrunch and SpinMedia) and seems very tangiently to the broader situation. And bribery is still a BLP issue, so we'd need better sources for this. It should be removed. (And I agree the milo/syringe thing too is unnecessary) --MASEM (t) 04:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The author of the Death and Taxes piece compared it to a bribe and that is what we are quoting.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And? Again, we're still talking about a BLP claim from weak RSes, so should be removed. --MASEM (t) 04:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If we drop this neutrally written paragraph that one claim about "bribery" being a BLP violation then the even more weakly sourced sentence on Milo's syringe goes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Masem, it is a single sentence backed by three different sources. Not even remotely an issue and just noting one of numerous reliably-sourced instances of people who support GamerGate being subject to harassment. Do not even indulge him on this point.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Those "three different sources" consist of spending a sentence apiece each on two of them going "Update: Milo Yiannopoulos said he got a syringe in the mail" and the third going "Milo got sent this syringe". And Milo is not exactly a reputable source.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for immediately proving how this is just WP:POINT garbage. You do know that the stuff about Milo is one fucking sentence long right? Your response to using multiple stronger sources to back a single sentence about someone reporting an instance of harassment is to use a much weaker source to shove in an entire paragraph attacking a named individual and bluntly accusing him of bribery. The fact you even think this shit is equivalent demonstrates pretty clearly why you should not be allowed anywhere near this page.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Those sources are weak. There is one sentence dedicated to the syringe in the 3 sources being cited. That's a minor thing. This is something someone felt the need to write a whole article about on a non-gaming website. Bribery is not a criminal offense no matter how you try to spin this as a BLP violaton as was done yesterday with the Reddit admins on BuzzFeed. BLP does not say "never write bad things about living people". It says "make sure it meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR" and that's exactly the case here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

[4].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ssssssstttttttrrrrrrreeeeetttttttcccccchhhhhh. The law you cite prohibits bribing an employee to damage or defraud the business they work for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not concerned with whether a poorly-sourced allegation of criminal conduct has merit. The fact is that the term "bribe" does carry implications of illegality under California law.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not an allegation of criminal conduct. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I moved it to the section on Gawker/Operation Baby Seal, as the demands were made related to that issue.

I think it's quite obvious why it's relevant — a prominent GamerGate supporter (and please none of this "he doesn't represent GamerGate" garbage) basically tried to set up a prominent blogger in a "have you stopped beating your wife" situation, and that blogger stood his ground and called him out on it. There is no BLP issue here; what Cernovich said is sourced and verifiable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There are also these claims made by Dash, but I'm not sure if they're worth adding.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And? That's one person. This is similar to the admins of KIA situation again. Yes, stupid, non-sensical action, but this type of thing (as well as the Milo thing) is petty issues that are minor points in the larger narrative that we should be focusing on. --MASEM (t) 04:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the act of someone acting as a frontman of GamerGate doing nothing but harassing someone who had nothing to do with GamerGate that he apparently had a prior dispute with. It's as related as Milo's discarded syringe.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You and the others have been pushing the argument that there is no frontman to GG as supported by sources being a leaderless group, so saying that now is a hypocritical argument. It is a minor point in the whole argument, as is the KIA mod aspects, the Milo/Synringe thing, and probably a handful of other things on both sides of the issue. --MASEM (t) 04:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Cernovich makes himself out to be a frontman or talking head just like Yiannopoulos does. The movement is nebulous enough that these people get to say they're the leader and be believed by the public. If this is removed then every single other peripheral and poorly sourced crap gets thrown out of the article as well. But not because of the vague claims that it violates BLP, which it clearly does not as this was multiple editors disagreeing with TDA.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It's very interesting how the article includes several completely-anonymous purported GamerGate supporters claiming to be victims of harssment, but you rush to remove actual, named and sourced discussion of harassment by a named GamerGate supporter.

You can't keep using the "that's one person" excuse, Masem. That is literally pulling a no true Scotsman. Either GamerGate is a movement or it's not. If it's a movement, actions by its supporters are relevant to the movement and will reflect on the movement. If it's not a movement, time to remove everything that calls it a movement, and it's back to being a bunch of random people incoherently tweeting things with a hashtag. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

100% WRONG. Forcing the question "Is it a movement or not" is trying to have WP take a side on this article and WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT. We cannot be apologetic to either side, nor can we be in agreement with any side. We have to ride the middle line of NEUTRALITY (which is not the same as balance). We can cite all the predominance of sources in the media to explain that the media hates gamergate, but not one ounce of that can be in the WP voice or tone; similarly, we can cite the barely measurable number of sources that try to explain proGG in a good light, but we cannot apologize for the harassment that some of their members did. There is a very clean line that is right in neutral territory that we can do, but too many editors are so focused that "GG is bad because harassment" that we are verving off this line. We absolutely cannot play that card, just as we cannot play the card of the claimed SPAs that want this to be all super proGG positive. We can call it a movement and not a movement at the same time because the bulk of that statement is riding on opinions, not fact: GG is a self-described movement, whose motives are questioned by the press. That is a completely sourcable, neutral characterization, neither positive or negative towards either side. That's the language we need to keep heading towards. That's what is demanded by NPOV (again, remember I'm not talking balance, I'm talking neutrality). The article on Scientology provides a template of what we should be trying to do here because it is about a group that is near universally disliked including allegations of illegal operations (money-taking), yet we write about it in WP's voice completely neutrally neither giving it too much praise or condemnation without giving the source.

Following this path, the end article is certainly not going to paint the GG side in a very positive light due to the press, but it not because we've said that GG is bad in WP's voice, it is because we've sourced just enough press pieces to make it clear. It's also going the few bits of redeeming qualities (far outweighed by the criticisms) that are present in some sources, like GG trying to police itself, etc. All of that would be neutral, not try to lead the reader to a conclusion by WP's voice (though they will likely have it clear from the press sources.) It's not hard, everyone (established and SPAs) just have to drop their bias at the door before editing here and keep to the absolutely neutral line. --MASEM (t) 04:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And when specific named supporters of that movement make actions that are criticized in the media and linked to the movement at large, we can and will discuss those people's actions in the context of the movement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If they are noted by significant RSes. And that same sentiment also applies to other named people. Quinn, Wu, etc. - their names aren't going anywhere, but the stuff above, and the stuff with Milo, and probably a few other things on both sides can be lost to improve our sourcing and keep our neutrality better. --MASEM (t) 05:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

TechCrunch is a pretty significant RS and DeathAndTaxes is part of SpinMedia, an established publishing/media organization. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Spinmedia operates media projects that would not meet our criteria for reliability with DeathAndTaxes being apparently weak in that department since it looks like they have basically four editors who do most of the writing and maybe a handful of writers who contribute infrequently to the site. TechCrunch does not even mention Cernovich by name.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

CinemaBlend has five named editors (and a "creative director") but you don't have any problem citing them twice. The Inquisitr doesn't even list its staff. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

They list six editors, and this does not include assistant editors and a staff of professional writers who are not listed on that page. It is a very different situation. There is no clear indication that DeathAndTaxes has the same level of professional staffing given that most of the pieces seem to be written by the four editors. Listing staff in a public area of the site is not inherently an issue of reliability as many sites do not list their entire staff on a single page, especially large outlets for obvious reasons. Inquisitr has a large staff of writers, most with professional journalistic experience, but they do not detail that anywhere. My statement is based off having looked at the staff page for DeathAndTaxes and noticing the four editors seem to author the majority of the pieces on the site.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, most outlets do list at least their primary editorial staff somewhere. The fact that The Inquisitr doesn't list *any* named staff *anywhere* is a red flag. Your assertion that most have "professional journalistic experience" is unsupported. It appears to be a news aggregator with at best no more claim to reliability than BuzzFeed, which you just yesterday spent a bunch of words here arguing we can't use. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This is like saying when a Muslim person beheads a person in Nebraska, that represents all Muslims. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?Sy9045 (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No, your analogy fails. Being Muslim is being part of a religion and being a supporter of GamerGate is being part of a specific ideological group. This is more like when an IRA member killed someone in Northern Ireland, that represented all IRA members. Which, well, yeah, it kind of sort of did, in the eyes of everyone looking from the outside. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

What a ridiculous and false equivalency. The IRA is a terrorist group. It's debatable that GamerGate is even a group, and any harassment on some figure will not implicate everyone who supports GamerGate for that crime (unlike IRA members committing crimes). Are you saying that when a member of Occupy Wall Street raped or killed someone, that defined all members of Occupy Wall Street? Sy9045 (talk) 07:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so your equivalency of GamerGate and Muslims is valid but my equivalency of GamerGate and the IRA isn't? Yeah, that makes sense. Keepo

If someone robbed a bank while waving an Occupy Wall Street banner, it probably would have. A better comparison is the "black bloc" anarchists who used violence and confrontation in their protests — when they showed up at Occupy protests, it often reflected badly on Occupy and media coverage discussed that issue extensively. For that reason, many in Occupy made efforts to reject the black bloc, for fear that the movement would be tainted by association with violent anarchism as opposed to peaceful protest. No less than Jon Stewart weighed in and said "I know it's not all of you, but you will always be judged by your worst elements, and it's very tough to wrangle a leaderless movement." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The is just absurd. Are you seriously equating GamerGate supporters to terrorist groups? Did the people who threaten anti GG carry a pro GG flag when they made their threats? Do you not see how several pro GG members have condemned the harassment on those who are anti GG? The IRA is a terrorist group as defined by numerous countries and NGOs and every member will be implicated in any crime that the IRA carries out. The fact that you're even equating people who support GamerGate to the terroristic IRA is quite telling, shocking, and absurd all at the same time.Sy9045 (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You're getting awful high and mighty about comparisons for someone who started this conversation comparing GamerGate to Muslims beheading people. You compared GamerGate to a major world religion and are now faux-outraged that I'm comparing it to the anarchist groups which made Occupy Wall Street look bad. Quite.

It doesn't really matter that "several pro GG members have condemned the harassment" if it continues waving the GG flag. You don't seem to understand that the leaderlessness and disorganization of GG is a weakness, not a strength. If nobody can "speak" for GG, then everyone speaks for GG and there is literally no way of distinguishing one from the other. Who are you to say that this other person who commits harassment isn't really GG? The movement has no way of disassociating itself from the harassment and even if they did, it's basically too late anyway — the hashtag is permanently tainted by what's come before. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You are being so intellectually dishonest that I don't even know if I should waste my time responding to you anymore. Comparing what a few people do to stereotype an entire group is wrong. That is, using a few isolated examples of harassment to stereotype all GamerGate supporters is like using a few isolated examples of Muslims beheading people to stereotype all Muslims. It's also like using a few isolated examples of rape in Occupy Wall Street to represent all members of Occupy Wall Street. It's also like using a few Democratic or Republican DUI incidents and saying all Democrats or Republicans drink and drive. It is an absurd argument. Is that clear? Also your point that because there's no "leader", it's fair to stereotype everyone who supports GG from the actions of a few is so ridiculous and absurd that it doesn't even dignify a response.Sy9045 (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No, actually, it's not. And stop reformatting my posts.

These aren't "isolated incidents," these are basically everything GG has ever done that's notable. When a movement has done effectively nothing but harass people out of their homes for false, specious reasons... yes, that movement is going to be publicly judged by those actions.

As any number of reliable sources have pointed out, when a "movement" has no leadership, no organization, no manifesto, no membership requirements... there is no way of separating anyone out of the movement. There is nobody in GG who can disavow acts committed in its name. Simply saying that "if they're harassing people, they're not in GG" is literally the no true Scotsman logical fallacy and is completely uncompelling and unconvincing to anyone who isn't already in the movement.

This is absolutely one of the reasons Occupy Wall Street petered out into nothingness. And it at least had *some* sort of shared manifesto, public assemblies for decision-making, etc. GG doesn't have any of that, and has the added disadvantages of being all online, effectively anonymous, began with false allegations and basically the only notable things it's ever done are harassment campaigns. But now we're into WP:NOTFORUM territory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, actually, it is.

Absurd argument that doesn't even dignify a response. Even Jimmy Wales knows there are legitimate gripes about gaming journalist collusion.

Stop stereotyping people. The vast majority of pro GG tweets are not harassment campaigns. Your biases are so apparent and you should quit editing.

And this is like saying because Occupy Wall Street has no leader, it's fair to pin one rape incident on every member of the group. Every member who associates with Occupy Wall Street is now a rapist according to you. The argument is ridiculous and incredibly absurd. I can't even believe I'm still responding to something so ridiculous.Sy9045 (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair or not, that's the way it works in the court of public opinion. I linked you half a dozen sources which specifically discuss how the black bloc movement tainted Occupy Wall Street and if you want more, there's plenty more. The "legitimate gripes" have yet to be articulated in any clear manner. Nobody outside the movement takes the idea that social criticism is "unethical" seriously. The movement has muddied the waters so much with harassment and threats that it's pretty much lost all credibility.

Your claim of bias clearly comes from an entirely-unbiased position, and I shall immediately and thoroughly ignore it. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You told me not to reformat your posts, but you reformat mine. LOL, whatever. If a few Occupy Wall Street supporters rape, I don't stereotype all Occupy Wall Street members as rapists. In the same vein, if a few pro GG harass others, I wouldn't stereotype all GG supporters as harassers. That's not fair at all to the vast majority of people who support each group. You haven't even considered the opposition's arguments. How can you think you're objective when you stereotype all people who are pro GG as harassers? How is that even close to objective?Sy9045 (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

That's because you interspersed your posts into mine in a way that makes the discussion incoherent and impossible to follow.

I make no such stereotype and I've never said all pro-GGers are harassers. I've certainly considered the arguments, but none of them seem to make any sense to me. If you want to take a crack at explaining them with reliable sources, go for it. Let me just warn you that if you start with "Zoe Quinn slept with someone for reviews" you can just stop there and not waste time, because that shit's been debunked 80,000 times over. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Uhh, yeah you did. You painted pro GG supporters with a broad brush (see this line you wrote for example, "When a movement has done effectively nothing but harass people out of their homes..." and others) because it was "leaderless" and so every harassment incident reflects on every member of that group. I said that was absurd. I will give you the benefit of the doubt though since it seems you are more level headed now and aren't stereotyping anymore.Sy9045 (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I follow GamerGate everyday and this is the first time I even heard of this Dash guy, seems like another shameless attemp at attacking Cernovich, a person who has got in the nerves of some people opposed to GamerGate, even if it were to be included, dedicating an entire paragraph and including a picture (pictures are included only of Quinn and other really notable people like Felicia Day, Sommers, Baldwin) is pretty ridiculous Loganmac (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This happened more than a week ago. Cernovich is barely mentioned on this page as it is and there was never any "attack" on him. And free photos are free photos. If we had free screenshots of video games in question they would be plastered all over this. No one objected to my proposal days ago. Just now when TDA suddenly decided that the word "bribe" constituted a BLP violation (which it does not) and then attacked the sources (which he said he was not in the first place) when there's no feasible BLP violation then there's an issue. Dash said that Cernovich has been stalking him for a year and then when Cernovich becomes Mr. GamerGate he attacks Dash, someone who had not said anything about GamerGate, because now this one person is being shown in a bad light when that's how the sources are showing him, then we have to put on the kid gloves? This is ridiculous. It's something relevant to cover that is not a BLP violation, much like everything in that Buzzfeed article yesterday was not a BLP violation regardless if some nobody mod on a forum got doxxed when no one acknowledges that doxxing. This is only an issue when raised by editors who have done nothing on Wikipedia except to contravene reliable sources' presentation of GamerGate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of bribery certainly falls within BLP - it's implicating a moral crime about an individual, so if it is only backed by weak sources, it should not be included. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Covertly bribing someone to get something you want might be described as a 'moral crime.' But publicly declaring that you will do X if someone else does Y is a 'bribe' in only the loosest sense. Agreement to the arrangement would not in and of itself be considered malfeasance on either party's part by any reasonable individual: it's only noteworthy because of the twitter backlash when Dash declined, and noting that someone offered a donation in exchange for a message of support is not something that could be considered potentially libelous by any reasonable person. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• I highly recommend you take this issue to WP:BLP/N and let uninvolved editors sort it out. And don't swamp the B:PN discussion with your own opinions, let them discuss and if they like they can read all your opinions as presented here. And stop the edit warring, if there's a clear BLP issue, take it to a noticeboard or an admin with clear, unbiased evidence. Dreadstar ☥ 07:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of content that violates BLP is exempt from 3RR. The fact that you blocked TDA (even for a few minutes) for doing such in interest of BLP is concerning. Tutelary (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

As WP:3RR says, "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." and that if the reverting editor is claiming exemption to make it clear in the edit summary and/or talk page. If any of the reverting editors have serious issue with this content it would probably be more productive to take it to the WP:BLPN instead. As suggested by the WP:3RR. -- Strongjam (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think several of you here are getting a little too emotionally involved in the topic. Remember, WP's polices require that we don't take one side or the other. You have to be able to take a step back and try to objectively understand the stance by all sides of the issue, and write the article in a way that doesn't choose which side is right. Can you all do that? Cla68 (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated and unproven assertions about BLP are absolutely BLP violations and even if you believe they're not, it's up to you to get consensus for the edit, not continually edit war it back in. The fact of the matter that it's casting negative assertions of a BLP--even implicating that that person did a crime absolutely runs afoul of BLP. Do not restore. Tutelary (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Even ignoring BLP concerns that was horribly written, full of weasel words. Halfhat (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

what weasel words? What BLP concerns? There is nothing wrong with the current incarnation of the paragraph. BLP only says that content must be verifiable, neutrally written, and not original research. It does not forbid us from writing content that could be interpreted as negative. There is no reason to remove this one paragraph from the page. It does nothing but identify one person who has been involved in Gamergate and not only harassed Dash but the other writer discussed elsewhere on the page, unless that was removed too. There is absolutely no reason for this to not be on the article other than everybody who is very clearly biased in the favor of the movement having an issue with one of the movement's outspoken "heroes" being vaguely maligned. I am tired of this nonsense. No one has raised one valid and policy supported concern as to why this paragraph must have been removed constantly.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Asserting that someone has done something criminally or that another person has harassed another in any context is a BLP violation. "There's no reason to remove this paragraph" is absolutely misleading. The reason that this BLP violation absolutely should be excluded is a matter of it casting negative aspersions against a living person. The fact that you are repeating the BLP violations in this talk page is unacceptable. Tutelary (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There are no assertions of criminal misconduct in any part of the paragraph and "harassment" and "bullying" are both used by the sources. You have no foundation to accuse me of violating BLP. BLP does not say "do not write bad things about people". It says "make sure whatever you add about living people meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR". Both TechCrunch and Death and Taxes verify that Anil Dash was targetted or no reason by Mike Cernovich who offered $1000 to Dash to talk shit about Gawker and when he refused he was harassed by Cernovich and several anon GamerGaters over it. The Death and Taxes piece calls it bullying and describes the act as a "bribe". You are making an extreme leap that the description of the act as a "bribe" constitutes an accusation of criminal behavior as the only time a "bribe" is considered as such, if we're using TDA's law example, as an illegal act between an employer and employee and not between two bloggers on the Internet over an offer for a charitable donation in public on Twitter for everyone to see and comment on rather than the private nature that is a criminal bribe. And on BLPN your new proclamation that "bullying" constitutes a crime in certain statutes is an equally as vague stretch to find an excuse to have this content removed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

In the first source (TechCrunch) Mike Cernovich is not even mentioned in any case. And I thought I saw a single mention in a link to another article (storify) but is not on the site but does explicitly mention Mike. But it's self published unambiguously. (Storify is, not TechCrunch) So that's original research from to connect him to it in TechCrunch because he's not mentioned explicitly in their article, and the scrutiny of BLP is absolutely not in favor of using that source that doesn't even make mention of him explicitly a violation of BLP. Then we're down to one source. Death and Taxes Magazine. I decided to dig a bit further to the 'about' sections which redirected to SpinMedia attempting to find editorial control, so I just read their terms instead. What it states The site which you linked from (the “Site”) provides a photo and video hosting/blogging service, amongst other things, to you (the “Service(s)”), subject to the following Terms of Service (“TOS”), which may be updated from time to time without notice to you. They blatantly also state they don't control the content. We do not control the Content posted via the Service and, as such, do not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content. (under user conduct) So Death and Taxes is self published and is in effect not a reliable source. Combine this with the fact that Bullying is a crime in several states, Harassment is in all 50, and Bribery is a crime when only one self published source describes anything about it is a full triple whammy in terms of BLP violations. It's not acceptable. Tutelary (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The TechCrunch piece is used to corroborate the fact that Anil Dash was harassed by GamerGate supporters out of nowhere. It is not being used to discuss anything regarding Mike Cernovich, other than my attempt to say that the harassment of Dash by GamerGate supporters, which just happens to include Cernovich, was evidence of trolling taking over. So that does not affect anything. The article on Death and Taxes is not written by some unknown writer. It is an artcle written by a member of the Death and Taxes staff. Your claims that "bullying", "bribery", and "harassment" are considered crimes and therefore this is not allowed under BLP is a stretch and a half.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Didn't you just see ahead of me that Death and Taxes is a self published source? Tutelary (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I am disputing your claim that Death and Taxes a self-published source. Being anal about the TOS of a website you disagree with is remarkably similar to the tactics taken by GamerGate recently.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, SpinMedia (which Death and Taxes is an affiliated of) has stated in their terms that they have no control over the content posted on the service and therefore have no obligations towards content quality. Additionally, anybody can call themselves a 'Staff Editor' and appear to be reliable, but looking at Linked in page, she specializes in 'Blogging' and 'copy editing'. It's a questionable source even coming from the 'Staff editor' of a staff of 4 for Death and Taxes. It's still unacceptable for a RS. Your claims that "bullying", "bribery", and "harassment" are considered crimes and therefore this is not allowed under BLP is a stretch and a half Nah, see WP:BLPCRIME. Tutelary (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

So that simply removes any blame or responsibility on behalf of SpinMedia and leaves it in the hands of Death and Taxes' editorial team. And no one is being accused of any crime in this. You are making a massive assumption on this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Tell me, do you not consider 'Bullying', 'Harassment', and 'Bribery' to be crimes? They absolutely are and people have been convicted for them. Saying a living person has done any of them by a manner of saying that 'X said Y was a crime and Y just did X' is strongly implying that without a conviction that the person did a crime. That is a BLP violation, per BLPCRIME. Tutelary (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not been living in the United States for two years so I am not personally up to speed on criminal statutes on any basis. Bullying and harassment have been central to the debate for months now. And bribery is not being described as a crime in the context of this article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

BLP does not have to be criminal thing - if it even implicates some negative connotation about the person, that can be a BLP Violation (for example, calling a person as homosexual without any evidence). Claiming bribery would fit within that. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

BLP does not say "don't write bad things about people". It says "anything added anywhere on Wikipedia about living people must meet WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR" and in this case we have a music & lifestyle magazine's staff editor writing about GamerGate, pointing out that Mike Cernovich targetted Anil Dash out of nowhere and offered to give $1000 to a charity of Dash's choosing if and only if Dash talked shit about Gawker. The author in the D+T piece called it a "bribe" which is in itself not an accusation of criminal misconduct as The Devil's Advocate has alleged, even when the word "bribe" was found nowhere in NorthBySouthBaranof's rewritten piece. And we have Tutelary tearing apart SpinMedia's terms of service to discredit D+T through whatever loophole that is she's talking about.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"Gamergate" as a controversy and as a movement

The article introduces Gamergate as "a controversy". But it also refers to "Gamergate supporters". This doesn't make sense to me. Are Gamergate supporters therefore supporting a controversy? I think it's very confusing for the casual reader right now.

Is it not the case that Gamergate is not itself a controversy but a controversial movement? Maybe not - but either way, can we rephrase things somehow? Popcornduff (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate is a bunch of people using a hashtag, each for their own individual purpose and reason and definition and ax to grind. You cannot call something a "movement" when everyone is going their own personal direction. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If they have self-identified themselves as a movement (Which they have) and people in the press have respected that title (Which they have, even if they say with some doubt re: front for harassment), we can use that title. We can't bring in preconceptions about a group into a neutral encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems plausible to me to call it a movement, or an ostensible movement, but I'm not too bothered about whether we use that exact term. I'm more concerned about the readability of the argument. We talk about "GamerGate supporters" without actually explaining what it is they're supporting. How can you "support" a controversy? If GamerGate is a controversy, what does it mean to be pro-GamerGate or anti-GamerGate? It's like saying "pro-Watergate" - what does that mean? Popcornduff (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That's all fine and good, but we do not need to distinguish between the "movement" and the "controversy" as the RS used treat them as the same thing. The movement is the controversy. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring anything of the quinn/4chan logs, we can verify that "Gamergate" was first used by those either challenging ethics and/or performing harassment as part of the movement (Which at the time had other names that we can't use here at all) with the press adopting the term as the controversy and not the group. The group later would take the term as the name for their movement. Hense the controvery comes first, but to understand when we say who is a "Gamergate supporter" it is necessary to spell out the movement to identify that they are the ones, from their POV, trying to ask for better ethics. That defines the two sides, broadly, for the rest of the lead. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring what we can identify, what the reliable sources have been clear about for a long time is "ostensible" reasons are merely "ostensible". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Which still means they acknowledge it exists, so we take out the weasel words and go with that. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an essentially-unanswerable question because the "movement" has no clearly defined goals, no leadership and really no organization whatsoever. "GamerGate" is whatever anyone who uses the hashtag wants it to be, more or less. Which means there's really no way to engage it in any sort of meaningful discussion and no way to clearly disassociate it from the harassment campaigns other than no true Scotsman. We can vaguely describe them as "journalism ethics" but plenty of reliable sources have pointed out the vapidity of that phrase because those "ethics" complaints usually don't really have anything to do with actual journalism ethics, but end up being "we don't like the way you reviewed a game." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

But we can perhaps be more careful and not use the term "gamergate supporters" and be more accurate with "some people using the gamergate hashtag"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Man, I didn't realise what a can of worms I was about to open here. Guess that was inevitable considering the subject matter. My original question wasn't supposed to be about whether Gamergate is a "movement", but rather how we can write about Gamergate in terms of "supporting" Gamergate if we're instead defining it as a controversy. (e: I wish I'd worded my original comment better in that respect.) Your response is the only one here that has a concrete suggestion on that matter, so thanks! Popcornduff (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no movement. "Gamergate" is a bunch of people doing different things under the umbrella of a hashtag, and the notability derives directly from the controversy these anonymous people have generated. Most of those things are centered around harassment of those who support Zoe Quinn and others, while a handful claim it's about ethics. Reliable sources, however, come down squarely on the "it's primarily about harassment" side. Tarc (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

+1. Ironholds (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources acknowledge there is a movement even if they deny its goals, aims, or structure. We can include all their complains about the movement and its lack of defined notion, but we cannot act like there is no movement, as that is verifyable. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources acknowledge harassment is the core of the average "gamergater". If you wish to suggest that there is an organized movement to harass, then I'm all for that. Otherwise, no, there is no "movement", only random anonymous internet users who use this and similar hashtags. Also, y'know, I think it's about time you peruse WP:BLUDGEON and consider the possibility that you do not need to respond every single time to every single thing someone with an opposing point-of-view posts. It's honestly getting to be a bit wearying. Tarc (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the sources do not say that. They say that the vocal minority of those that harass under the name GG are diffusing and tainting any types of efforts that those actually involved in the "movement" to make themselves legit, leading to the advice of this group to move to a new title and condemn the harassment themselves. No source has said that the majority of GG is involved in harassment, though they do say that as long as they don't take action to stop it, they're not helping their cause. This is a far different than what you are claiming. And the reason I need to respond is that I feel I am the only established editor (short of Diego) on this page that sees the blatantly obvious bias that the other established editors are applying, in a tag-team fashion (described on my arbcom statement, just stating that here to explain myself), in part because this issue is very polarizing, but we have to work extremely hard to stay unpolarized in everything. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"They're not involved in death threats, they're just refusing to disassociate themselves from those who issue death threats"? At what point does silence become collusion? Ironholds (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not a question we are here to answer. I can speculate that if this keeps on in the same fashion, with continued random harassment of various people, and no effort is made to stop it, even the present press that have tried to give some reason to the proGG side will completely abandon them within the next few months. Or it will be legal action, or something else, that will cause the movement to fall out. We'll have a clear point when the press fully on GG where they cannot defend them anymore , at which point we have little choice here but to follow that lead. But that's all "if", and only personal speculation based on inaction by the proGG side. Until then, we stay neutral in tone and approach. --MASEM (t) 21:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources which discuss the vaporous and vacuous nature of the "journalism ethics" smokescreen, pointing out that GamerGate has yet to actually identify and articulate any legitimate ethical issue it's concerned about. "You need to stop talking about sexism in gaming reviews" is not viewed by anyone as a legitimate issue of journalism ethics, except insofar as it would actually be *unethical* to modify reviews at the behest of an external demand. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Which I am not questioning that (that the press is calling out the movement as a smokescreen) - and in fact we have to include as a significant viewpoint. And while very few (I'd be hard press to find a source in a few minutes) give any credible actionable items to the reviews claim, they are at least acknowledging that some parts of GG has brought forth arguments more related to disclosure that can be acted on. There is cover of the proGG movement in a neutral light - just nowhere close in the balance to what the rest of the media thinks of them but nowhere near enough to ignore as FRINGE. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"I feel I am the only established editor (short of Diego) on this page that sees the blatantly obvious bias that the other established editors are applying..." If you sit down at the table and don't see the sucker... Protonk (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm taking the fact that there's a huge voice of people that aren't at the table but are yelling off screen that there's an obvious problem here as validation there is something wrong. And no not to kowtow to their "demands" that this be about ethics first and skirt off the harassment. Just fixing the tone. For example, the lead right now at least as of this [5] is , in mind, about as neutral as we can get with it and a point I'm relatively satisfied with it - note it is clearly in favor of the antiGG arguments per the predominace of the case in sources, but also makes sure that proGG is not wholly "evil", identifying some elements trying to do good. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, it isn't "a huge voice of people." It's a tiny fringe, relatively speaking. The fact that they are yelling loudly over the Internet does not, in any sense, validate their arguments. It's clear that GamerGate supporters are unhappy with the way reliable sources have covered their movement. It's far from clear that their arguments have any merit whatsoever. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

But some of their arguments are valid within WP policy; certainly a minority of them, but they have identified just small things that don't change the narrative, that don't change the predominance of antiGG sources, that simply makes the tone of the article no more accusational than the sources already do for us. At least a decent fraction of them are well aware Wikipedia will never write an article favorable to them, but they are looking for one that gives them the same type of treatment that we give to other people or groups that, popularly, are considered bad or evil ala ISIL. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

GG is as much a movement about ethics in games journalism as scientology is a religion built on harmony and faith. We shouldn't be in the business of carrying water for a fringe viewpoint just because it's the message coming from 4chan/reddit and has been espoused by a fairly small group of useful idiots and fellow travelers, in contrast to the majority of reliable sources. This isn't about calling GG evil or even misogynist, it's about not being taken in by that core fiction. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

And considering that the bulk of the RS are critical of Scientology as a fake religion, please see how neutral our article on that is Scientology. It's FRINGE obviously, but there's serious discussion of it's basis, and the criticism is contained to a few sections, nor does the article dismiss in a WP voice that it is not a religion; every place that it is questioned it identifies who is speaking that, so that there is no doubt that WP makes the claim. That's what we have to do here to. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Protonk, if you're going to compare GamerGate to Scientology, maybe we could facture an article similar to the structure of Scientology? Maseam's right especially regarding the tone and neutrality. Criticism is due weighted and the like, even if it's covering fringe material. Tutelary (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Eventually this article will likely get broken up into smaller ones, but that's a discussion for another time. Protonk (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You write a lot about how we shouldn't talk about GG as evil or we should specifically note where criticism comes from when making it, so that it's not in the encyclopedia's voice. So far as it goes, I'm all for that. Where I have a problem is the insinuation of the fringe claim that GG is a movement about ethics in games journalism with only a small and unfortunate vocal minority ruining the party for everyone by harassing women into our article. That's the matter at hand and the source of a lot of the disagreements. Whenever this problem is brought up, you've reframed it as us needing to move criticism out to other voices, which isn't the issue at all. Protonk (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

To The Red Pen; [6], [7], [8], (parody news, see below) [9], [10], [11], [12] These sources all describe GamerGate as a movement. Tutelary (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

lololol. Did you just paste in a clickhole link? Protonk (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, to demonstrate that even Parody news calls it a movement. Also do a Ctrl + F in the source code, Red Pen also referred to it as a source in the context you're implying I am. Tutelary (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It certainly demonstrates something. Protonk (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• To address the issue of TRPOD's issues with movement: mainstream RSs acknowledging the Gamergate movement (even if they question the motives) [13], [14], [15], [16]. "Gamergate movement" gives ~4,100 GNews hits, compared to "Gatergate" giving about 36,000, so it is significantly considered as a movement. Again, we can use the negative and sometimes dismissive idea that it is a movement from a large number of sources, but we cannot deny that they call themselves a movement. --MASEM (t) 23:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You appear to want it both ways on that. Artw (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

GNews as a measure of what reliable sources say is not particularly useful; it aggregates kind of a lot of stuff. And please make your mind up; either the "gamergate movement" is a movement with a cohesive set of core interests and values, and should be described as such, or it is not a cohesive movement, and so the death threats and refusal to disassociate from them do not reflect on the "movement" as a whole. Ironholds (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

IT CAN BE BOTH because there are differing viewpoints on this. These are not mutually exclusive points because we are primarily working from opinions of the press, not hard facts. Again, the Scientology article is a good example of how we treat this on WP. We talk about the basis of the "religion" in a fair manner, making no assumptions on its motivations or goals being in earnest or not, and then we address the fact that most sources laugh it off as a rather elaborate hoax. We speak to both points in the same article, attributing both parts to appropriate sources. We can do the same here. There are sources that say it is a movement, with no strings attached, so we can talk about its goals/ideals regarding ethics from those. And then there are sources (many more sources, but not enough to make the first point a FRINGE one) that we can say that some may consider a movement but used as a front for harassment. But key is that most sources will call it a movement, but whether it is a movement for ethics or something else is a point of debate that we can address further in this article. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Please also note: we do not state as a fact in WP's voice that it is a movement about ethics, just that it is some type of "movement" - Gamergate became the name of the movement within the video game community at the center of the controversy., which leaves it vague enough to address that what the movement's actual goals are are unknown. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Can *anyone* describe what legitimate journalism ethics issues Gamergate is really interested in? No? Then the movement's actual goals are pretty well-known, because they're demonstrable from what the movement has done — leap all over an ex-boyfriend's drama dump to slut-shame a woman, harass a whole bunch of women in the industry, demand that game reviewers stop talking about social issues in games, and scream bloody murder at anyone who says they're not about harassment. WP:DUCK is in effect with this "movement," Masem. At some point everyone concludes what you are based on what you've accomplished. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

DUCK absolutely will not apply to article content without the support of sources, that's original research of the worst type - it's fine for discussing the behavior behind the scenes but using DUCK in article space is a violation of all core principles. And no, we don't need to actually have to have full understanding of what their motives are to be called a movement though we do have enough RSes to identify they wnat disclosure, and they are now working the consumer revolt angle with the ad campaigns. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that 'consumer revolt' is also supported by sources; [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] (Looks bloggy but listing anyways), [23]. Tutelary (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Reading your sources, they don't seem to support your claim well. The Verge has the term 'consumer revolt' in sarcasm quotes. It only appears in the comments of the Daily Kos piece. Medium is self-published. TechRaptor is not a relialbe source, and the article cited is an opinion column. Huffpo calls it an "ostensible consumer revolt (the verge uses the same term in another article). So you have exactly one source, the Guardian column, that appears to be legitimately calling it that and several that appear to be treating the claim with suspicion: there are actually several more online that do the same, putting the term in quotes as The Verge does or using language similar to Huffpo, saying the movement 'bills itself' as a consumer revolt. The only other source that appears to be seriously referring to gamergate as a 'consumer revolt' is Breitbart. This is a distinctly minority view. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the term "consumer revolt" is a self-ascribed term by the proGG side [24]; hence why a source like the Verge may use it in sarcastic way. That term should probably put into quotes, and ascribed to a source to be clear. --MASEM (t) 01:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of that some gaters claim that gamergate is a consumer revolt, but my reading of Tutelary's comment (especially given that this is a discussion of whether or not gamergate can even be properly called a 'movement') was that these sources supported the idea that gamergate is a consumer revolt, when in fact most of them do the opposite, treating the claim with suspicion. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

To not call it a movement or a consumer revolt would belie the sources as this is documented; at the same time, to call it a movement or a consumer revolt and not address the opinion of the press that it is a front for harassment is also belying the sources. Both aspects are included to follow NPOV. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree emphatically on the second count especially: calling it a consumer revolt uncritically would be inappropriate because we have only a tiny minority of sources that even use the term, let alone actually call it a 'consumer revolt' as opposed to reporting that somebody else called it that. And if we treat it as a movement, we need to do so as the sources do: that is, we can't treat it as an ethics movement in WP's voice becuase we don't have good sources for that claim. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope, that's not how it works. Remember: the bulk of what the press have said are opinions, not facts. Since there is evidence that the GG group itself has called itself a movement and/or a consumer revolt, as a primary party of the event, we should use what they call themselves (since that also can be documented by others), making sure it is clear it is self-described. Obviously, I agree we cannot leave it hanging on that and not include any facet of the press's doubt about the movement/revolt aspect. But we cannot act like the press is not at least giving some benefit of a doubt when it saying, effectively "GG describes itself as a movement about ethics, but really doubt this is their true intentions". We can stay NPOV by saying "GG is a self-described movement based on addressing ethics issues in journalism, but this concept is broadly challenged by the press, stating the movement appears as a false front for harassment." That's appropriately neutral that can be sourced with no issues. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it's your opinion that when reliable news sources say that gamergate's only notable activities have involved misogynistic harassment they're 'only opinions,' but we don't treat news sources as opinions just because some editors don't agree with them. If this were only sourced to actual opinion pieces, which are clearly labeled as such by any reputable source, then you'd have an argument, but that's not the case here. What is your bar for accepting mainstream press coverage as factual if the coverage we currently have is not sufficient? The misogyny and harassment are what we have decent sources for. They're the only reason this article even exists. We're not going to cram the article full of weasel words saying that 'the press claims' this or that, but we absolutely do need to start better representing our sources in terms of qualifying 'but ethics!' as nothing more than an unfounded and widely discredited claim. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The press is not a neutral party in this, because they are part of the events (some more than others). They are reporting facts - how the harassment occurred and how that went down for example - but they are also making a lot of assumptions past that, that are valid logical conclusions but they have no evidence to support the result as facts. The better, less biased/less involved sources (mainstream sources) are reporting this properly, saying "It is likely that..." type language, so that they are not assigning facts to what GG is; the more biased ones ditch that language all together. Take for example (first good hit I've seen), from Boston Globe who I'm pretty sure most will call less biased in this: [25] The mostly unknown participants behind GamerGate — named for its Twitter hashtag — contend that they are fighting against what they see as favoritism and a lack of ethics in gaming journalism. They’re also unhappy about what they see as an increasingly liberal agenda in video games. Critics say that GamerGaters are brutish bullies trying to drive women out of a field that men have long dominated, using tactics that include online harassment and “doxxing,” slang for posting personal information, such as a home address, bank information, and Social Security number. It neither sides or condemn GG, and it does not try to report what GG claims is the cause, or the other press's reaction as fact, but that it is a debate -- properly describing this as all opinions so far. That's how we have to do this here. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Fucking nonsense. If the press is not reliable then we need to delete the article as failing to have significant coverage in reliably published sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I never said they were unreliable - I said they are clearly expressing opinion, not facts, at times. Major difference. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of the sources. Gamergate is not a special case. Its widely discredited claims of 'but ethics!' do not entitle it to special treatment under WP:RS. We have many reliable sources that are all presenting this issue in the same way, and we must follow them. Our mainstream and industry sources are consistently reporting on specific cases of harassment and the general issue of hostility to women in gaming, and are only giving the 'ethics' angle brief mentions and treating it as a claim, and not the movement's purpose. Contrary to your ongoing contention that this article is biased against gamergate (if nothing else I hope your RFC has made it plain that that's not the case) the article is currently exhibiting an WP:UNDUE problem by failing to treat the ethical claims the way our sources do. It is factually true that gamergate actually involves issues of misogyny and harassment in gaming culture, as the article states: we know this because there has been widespread reporting on these issues in the mainstream media. There are no sources for legitimate ethical complaints or concerns, only for the repeated but never supported claim that gamergate is about ethics in journalism. Therefor, the controversy centers on misogyny and harassment, but it does not 'center on' journalism ethics in the same way. We have sources for one, and not for the other. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not making GG a special case, I'm pointing out that the bulk of the press sources, when they are trying to characterize the GG side, are making opinions and conclusions based on their observations and these do not make it fact, regardless of how much you want it to be. That doesn't mean we don't cover them; the opinions of the press side will for the foreseeable future have to be the predominate weight of the article. But when the press claim that GG is misogynistic (for example), it is a claim, not a fact, and that difference must be recognized; the less biased/more neutral/more mainstream sources all present the issues of GG in the appropriate tone of their opinion or opinions of others, but not facts. That's is how we have to use the sources. We as WP editor cannot take the stance that GG is misogynistic because that would be taking the opinion of the press, and that would be an outright violation of NPOV. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

To add one thing: it's important to recognize the level of RS quality here. The higher up in RS quality ones goes on articles, in general that all means better journalism. So pieces like the Boston Globe piece above, or past sources from the WA Post or New York Times, are very clear that when they charge the GG side with a negative statement, it is clearly written as an opinion and not an objective fact. On the other hand, the weaker RS, and those sources clearly involved in the matter, are less likely to have that same level of journalism quality, are going to wear that opinion on the sleep and not even attempt to distinguish it from fact. But that is the nature of RS and biased sources. That's why we have to consider that this situation is one where systematic bias applies. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, your claims that the higher quality sources support your view is unfounded. We have sources for the misogynistic harassment. Saying that gamergate is a controversy that concerns issues of misogyny and harassment is completely acceptable based on our sources, because that is essentially the only aspect that is attracting attention. You are making arguments that would be useful against proposed language like 'Gamergate is a misogynistic harassment campaign that began when...' That is not what is being proposed here. So please try to focus on what people are actually saying rather than arguing against changes nobody is attempting to make. Our sources cover the misogyny issue - it doesn't matter whether a source says in its own voice 'gamergate is about harassment;' if a source says 'gamergate claims to be about ethics' and then goes on to describe the actual effects of the movement, what it is doing is presenting the events that lead people to say that the movement is about misogynistic harassment and not providing any evidence for the 'but ethics!' angle. So saying 'gamergate is a controversy over journalistic ethics' is not acceptable based on our reliable sources, because unlike the former issue, all we have is evidence that people have claimed such. We don't have sources for actual, legitimate ethics concerns that are presented by our reliable sources as a 'controversy about ethics.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The controversy yes, because is factually true that the press have used the word misogyny to describe the events. But this is very much why we have to distinguish between the controversy and the movement. We have no factual evidence that the people that support GG are misogynistic, only claims - the same claims that lead to why we can call the controversy about misogyny. And it is patently false that we don't have sources about the ethics claims by GG - there's been plenty of strong RS that have documented some of the concerns eg [26] for example. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The word 'ethics' does not even appear in that source. Can you be specific about how you believe that source provides anything more than evidence that gamergaters claim that gamergate is about ethics? I haven't contested that - we don't need the source about the party in the strip club to cite it - but I'm contrasting the 'but ethics!' complaints, which so far as our sources are concerned are all talk, with the well cited discussion about the treatment of women in gaming culture that the issue has sparked, complete with many cited examples of specific incidents and issues relating to that discussion. That's really the problem here: we can't treat this as an article about the movement rather than about the controversy because of the well-cited fact that there is simply no way to define it neutrally: we can only cover the events surrounding the term and the controversy they sparked. This is why bending over backwards to treat the 'but ethics!' claims 'neutrally' - that is, treat them as if they were as well cited as other discussion about the issue - is inappropriate. This isn't an article about the 'movement,' it's an article about the controversy surrounding that movement, because that's what we have sources for. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There's other sources that talk about other things, and some of there arguments are ethics related even if they don't use the word ethics. At the present time, this article is about the controversy, but it is petty and against the sources to ignore the fact there is a recognized movement that is also going by Gamergate, but we are able to throw several critiques of the movement (that ethics are a front for harassment, etc.) - which doesn't deny it exists, just that it exists for a far different reason than its apparent reason. There is no bending over backwards - it is actually using the sources in the proper neutral manner which is not being don't presently. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There's other sources that talk about other things, and some of there arguments are ethics related even if they don't use the word ethics Be specific, please. I haven't seen that there are sources that treat 'but ethics!' with anywhere near the level of depth as the debate over misogyny and harassment that this movement has sparked. We have sources for the statement that gaters claim that gamergate is about ethics, and sources for the fact that gamergate is notable primarily (indeed almost exclusively) for the issues it has raised about the gaming industry's treatment of women. There's simply no comparison: this is not 'some people say x and other people say y,' but 'some people say x because, well, they do, while other people say y because of all of these things that have actually happened. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources (like the Boston Globe above) that point out that the movement labels itself as one about ethics, in the same breath as pointing out the issues about harassment. That is sufficient for our purposes in writing neutrally. The problem is , you are trying to pass judgement in WP's voice and we absolutely cannot do that. We will continue to write about the GG movement in a neutral tone, as required by NPOV. It won't be balanced, but that's different from neutral. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop putting words in my mouth. For the umpteenth time, I am not 'trying to pass judgement in WP's voice.' The sources we have are enough for us to say, as the sources do, that some gamergaters claim that gamergate is about ethics. It is not enough to justify saying, in wikipeida's voice, that 'gamergate is a controversy about ethics.' Saying that it is, when our sources don't really support that, is not 'writing neutrally.' "Neutrality" is not a synonym for 'both sides have points!' -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok how can we make arguing here more productive.

The arguing largely seems to go unresolved, so I think something needs done, I posted something before but it had no effect, and I think I need to try again, in fact I think it's gotten even worse. I'd suggest reading this it's quite well written, I think it'd maybe be helpful to some people. Secondly, and I think I've said before, I think there'd be advantage in explaining why what you think is a good idea outside of the policy given it's not intended to be applied blindly, or atleast being more specific when citing policy, quoting the parts that you think supports your case. Or even doing both. Most people seem to develop strong views, acknowledge this and move on, don't fight with people over it, and please acknowledge your own biases. Lastly, and I've said this before, avoid accusing and insulting. Going around accusing people of being agenda pushers or calling them SJWs is not going to help anyone. If you think someone is doing something that wrong report them, or if you think it's unintentional say it to them in as friendly as manner as possible.

Lastly I'm going to kindly ask you not to discuss any actual policy or the article directly here, that's what my last attempt devolved into. Halfhat (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Um... is there going to be any expansion of the Newsweek citation?

http://www.newsweek.com/gamergate-about-media-ethics-or-harassing-women-harassment-data-show-279736

Merely how many people are using the hashtag is not even what the cited article is discussing. The main topic of the article is about almost something else entirely. Sookenon (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably usable to expand on the "Debate over legitimacy of ethics concerns" section. Any suggestions on what to add? -- Strongjam (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I've added what I believe a fairly neutral treatment of this article (now that they explained they only looked at a fraction of the data) to reflect the "its about harassment, not ethics" point they make. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

+1 Decent enough summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sookenon (talk • contribs) 06:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Might not hurt to include the following link as a counter to Newsweek's data. https://medium.com/@cainejw/a-statistical-analysis-of-gamergate-utilizing-newsweek-data-e2bada31ea7e The blog poster utilizes some rather complex statistical analysis, and comes to a conclusion opposite what Newsweek did. Kitsunedawn (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"and has the potential, if it successful, to financially harm Gawker"

Fix that extra "it". Tat (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tatarize: WP:SOFIXIT. Are you unable to edit the page yourself? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There's been some buggy reactions and knee jerk reversions after attempts to correct grammatical errors. I gave up trying myself. Kitsunedawn (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Motherboard

GamerGate has allegedly expanded into massive copyright violations. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/dear-gamergate-please-stop-stealing-our-shit?trk_source=popular kencf0618 (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If we do decide to write about this, we'll have to be very careful, they're accusing a crime but they haven't been found guilty in a court of law. Halfhat (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

From one standpoint, this is no difference between archive.today and sites like scribd; both are potential copyvios. I'd rather see a bit more coverage to make this a key accusation (and more about the issue of ad bypassing) from other sources. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"But ethics" apparently doesn't cover copyright. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In this case, it's something of a gray area, where copyright is concerned. In 2011, a Federal Judge ruled that reposting an entire article without permission, still falls under the "Fair Use" clause, and isn't copyright infringement. In that specific case, Wired was sued after one of their writers copied an editorial verbatim, and posted it to the site. http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/reposting-aggregation-fair-use_b38173 Kitsunedawn (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not Reddit where you discuss the link posted. Read WP:NOTFORUM. This is a discussion thread regarding the utility of the information in the link in improving the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

New article by Cathy Young (Reason.com)

Another great article by Cathy Young, too many quotes to list them here:

Misandry in the GamerGate Controversy

Racuce (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Young's piece is the only one that alleges misandry.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Contains links to unverifiable screencaps of an anonymous blogger who makes BLP-violating accusations against Zoe Quinn. If it's a BLP violation to include named sources that make specific allegations against specific named GamerGate supporters, this must be treated as an even more flagrant BLP violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Dude, we have multiple unquestionably reliable sources that link directly to the Zoe post. Arguing that we should somehow not link to a piece in Reason by a professional journalist because of a single link in the piece to a screen cap is just ridiculous. Of course, judging from your last mark it is clear this is more WP:POINT arguing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It may be because Young is treating it as fact when everyone else discounts it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read the article. I am not referring to Gjoni's post, which is not anonymous and has been widely reported. I am referring to Young's approving discussion and screencaps of a completely-anonymous third-party blogger ("KC Vidya") making different accusations that have not been reported by any other reliable sources.

Sauce for the goose and gander, TDA. For the last two days you've been crying BLP over two separate statements by identifiable journalists published in at-least-arguably-reliable-sources that are critical of identifiable GamerGate supporters. It's interesting to see how quickly you reject BLP concerns about statements by completely anonymous unverifiable bloggers when it suits your purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I know exactly what you were talking about. This is not comparable because you are objecting to the article above containing links to screencaps of some blog post, whereas I am objecting to actual content added to this page.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I specifically rewrote the section to omit the claim of bribery and you still reverted it citing BLP issues. So no, it's perfectly comparable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no BLP issue with the Young piece. She's not presenting KC's claims as fact. Cathy Young is a notable writer, and Reason is a reliable source. - hahnchen 21:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Even linking to those claims constitutes a violation, as they are anonymous unverifiable accusations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not how BLP works. Reliable sources can cite unreliable ones. One of The Daily Dot's pieces with an access date of September 2nd linked to the tumblr (since taken down) directly.[27] - hahnchen 22:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct. We leave it to the RS to decide whether or not to include unreliable sources. If they choose to include them, it's open for use here (assuming due weight, etc.). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that opinion column is dangerously skirting the line of libel by repeating those accusations in the way it does, and when we have shittons of opinion on the subject already we don't really need to stoop to using this just because it happens to be overtly pro-Gamergate. At this point we should probably be restricting opinion sources on the subject to extremely high profile ones, or to perspectives that have been covered or at least referenced in independent reliable news sources: the recent BBC news article that published Quinn's opinions on gamergate, for example. We need to develop some sort of standard metric by which opinions are included or excluded other than 'I like what this one says.' Everyone has an opinion; that doesn't mean that everyone's who can get their opinion published somewhere, somehow needs to be included in this article. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Young's article (I particularly like the "I verified all this at knowyourmeme.com" line) is like the playground retort of "no, YOU are". Thankfully we have WP:REDFLAG to cover situations of a single opinion writer making extraordinary claims. Tarc (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I've reached a point where this talk page starts to amuse me more than concern me. Which part of the article is extraordinary? We have other sources that corroborate with the things she's saying. It's not like she's revealing that Gamergate was run by ghosts this entire time. I assume the "extraordinary" part is when she says that an irrational hatred of women doesn't form mobs that battle with one another for months on end. But this is why I find it amusing: somebody says, "Maybe these people aren't motivated by evil. Maybe it's because of something," and the response is, "Impossible! We've factually proven it's evil at hand! What an extraordinary claim!"

Goodness, guys. Look, I don't think Cathy knows what Gamergate wants for sure, and in fact she even says that in her article. However, we're getting enough of these that we could potentially remark on some of the more consistent theories and attribute them to the points of view of these journalists or periodicals. YellowSandals (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, the article takes a pretty passive tone. It reads in favor of Gamergate, with a few caveats about where and how they respond to various issues. I'm not actually seeing a case of libel, since she's reporting what people have said or posted - libel is when a reporter publishes an outright defamatory lie, which is not what this article does. Basically, she seems to be commenting on how Gamergate could have come about if one doesn't assume that "misogyny" conveniently explains everything. The thing to note about this article is that it's another that adds some substance to the Gamergate side of the controversy. Something that attempts to explain what's going on through pro-GG eyes. I think we've now developed a small collection of articles that say heavy-handed moral politics have some involvement with this thing. YellowSandals (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This peice could be worth mentioning

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/1/7136343/gamergate-and-the-politicization-of-absolutely-everything Something like "Writing for Vox Ezra Klein said that GamerGate showed the same liberal Vs. conservative attitude as wider American politics." Halfhat (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. Though, I'm somewhat on the fence about it. While about GamerGate, it's not really about the controversy itself. Rather, that could derail the page itself.Kitsunedawn (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's too much of a problem in putting the issue in a wider context, it does go off in tangents of course, but we don't need to mention them. Halfhat (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Terminology: Controversy, "Movement" ?, Supporters

User:Popcornduff is right. There is an inconsistency in the use of terminology. The lede refers to Gamergate as a controversy. However, the article frequently refers to Gamergate supporters. How can people support a controversy? If there is a controversy, people can support one side of the controversy or the other side. I infer that so-called Gamergate supporters are actually those who are supporting the video game culture against criticism by the mainstream media. Is that correct?

Also, some editors on this talk page have referred to a "movement", but I see nothing describing a movement. By a movement, are editors referring to a culture or subculture that views itself as under attack, or to a movement led by the mainstream media criticizing that culture. I infer that the references to the movement (in this talk page) are really to the culture that views itself as under attack. Is that correct?

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The popular use of the term in the media is to refer to the controversy. But we have the issue that one side has adopted the name as the name of their group that (appears to) support the notion of change in VG journalism due to ethics, and it is believed that a subset/minority of this group is also the ones responsible for the harassment and attacks. Going off KIA and other non-RSes if only for understanding, they see themselves as a movement because they themselves as consumers that are looking to change how the journalism industry operates and doing that by questioning the ethics, and now by focusing on advertisers (Keeping in mind that some in the press think this is a pretense, but that's not necessary to clear up the terminology). --MASEM (t) 22:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't seem able to reach a consensus on whether Gamergate is a movement or not. I'd like to move away from that debate (or at least keep it in the debate above) and focus on possible solutions to our wording problem. Popcornduff (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

We should not refer to Gamergate as a movement in the voice of Wikipedia. Reliably sourced quotes referring to it as a movement can be quoted. Also, you have added useful information to the effect that the so-called supporters, who are defending the culture, are also trying to change mainstream journalism on VG due to ethics. Of course, if they are on the same "side" as those doing the harassment and threats, the harassment and threats are not ethical. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

We can cite it as a "self-described" movement, which is fine, and I'm completing fine with any other way that makes it clear we are not calling it a movement w/o a source to back that up. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've gone with that, thank you.

BTW; what's with the use of the term "gaming"? As in, "gaming industry" as opposed to "game industry" or "game culture"? I realise this is common, but it's slightly muddy to me - isn't it just simpler to say "game"? Not a major issue though. Popcornduff (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's shorter than "video game".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

But longer than simply "game". If you think "game" could include things like board games, the same could be said of "gaming". Popcornduff (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

False information in "Further Harassment"

Currently, in the Further Harassment and Threats part of the article, it states quote " Soon afterwards, Sarkeesian canceled a speaking appearance at Utah State University due to an anonymous shooting threat the school had received that alluded to the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre in Montreal, in which gunman Marc Lépine murdered 14 women in an act that he was quoted as saying was "fighting feminism". Though she had spoken before at other events in the wake of Gamergate which had received similar threats, she opted to cancel when the school could not assure her safety under existing Utah state weapons laws.[40][45][46][47] The threat was linked to GamerGate by Sarkeesian and the media, with The New York Times referring to it as "the most noxious example of a weekslong campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry and its culture."[40]"

However, according to the Salt Lake City Tribune, Gamergate was never linked to this. To quote the Tribune: "After consulting with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies, the university decided to host Sarkeesian’s lecture as scheduled, said USU spokesman Tim Vitale. The university planned to increase security for the lecture and forbid backpacks in the auditorium. However, they wouldn’t forbid guns." Without the clarification of the misidentification on the part of the New York Times, it leaves the general reader coming to the page, with the impression of culpability on the part of GamerGate members. I suggest either removing that reference from the GamerGate page, and instead placing it on Anita Sarkeesian's page, or adding a notation of some sort that not everyone agrees on the source of the threat. Kitsunedawn (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Your reference doesn't mean what you claim it means. The fact that one source you found doesn't mention GamerGate does not mean "that not everyone agrees on the source of the threat." Multiple reliable sources have linked the Utah State University threat directly to GamerGate, including, yes, literally The New York Times. If you want us to pile on a dozen more citation links which directly connect the two, we can do that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Its actually true that there is no firm identity of who did the threat, but the added part of that quote, with Sarkeesian and NYTimes making the connection, is reasonable to include to say why that was believed to be connected to GG. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the problem, it says it was linked by Sarkeesian and the media, which is what happened. Halfhat (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The main problem is that it draws a conclusion, even though Salt Lake's unified department and the FBI have noted that the investigation is still underway. They're currently not commenting on it, beyond that they are investigating all leads.

It draws a conclusion which is supported by a number of reliable sources, and is refuted by precisely zero reliable sources. That "the investigation is still underway" does not prohibit us from noting the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources that link the threats to Gamergate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Is your problem the word "linked"? What would you rather something like, "said was said to have come from"? Halfhat (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

the fact that the harasser himself links himself to gamergate should sufficient for you to drop the damn stick. After the mass shooting threat was sent to the school Monday around 10:15 p.m., a second threat arrived Tuesday. That one, USU spokesman Tim Vitale confirmed, claimed affiliation with the controversial and sometimes-violent online video gamers’ movement known as GamerGate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

But we do need to be clear that while it is true the second threat used GG, the first - which included the ref to the shooting and was the one that prompted her cancellation - did not, though that NYTImes and others made this connection can be included. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. As long as the sources are connecting those dots, that's what we go with. Tarc (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Where do you have any source that says it was merely the first threat and not the series in whole that caused the cancellation and that the others were merely belated gift wrap that had no impact? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Making this article readable

There's been some discussion about the shear length making the article unreadable†. But I think there's another problem with the readability, the article is just ugly. I'm not really sure how to improve it, one thing is maybe to split some bits up and merge others, but easier said than done, especially when neutrality really can't be compromised. Has anyone got any ideas how to make the article prettier, or other ideas to make it more readable?Halfhat (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

†Sorry to be smug here, but I told you, I said this would happen a while back. Halfhat (talk)

No, you're not sorry to be smug. If you're self-aware enough to add a "Sorry to be X", you know it's a meaningless comment but intend to say it anyway.

I think splitting it up potentially makes sense; do you have any suggestions as to what bits might be better forked off? Ironholds (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I think splitting bits of it up might be premature. Before that's considered, we should really take a look at what can be removed or condensed. I've said it before, but I think we should seriously think about redoing the background section(I guess now it's the history section) or removing it entirely. Now that the "end of the gamer identity" section is down to about a paragraph, we don't really need 3 more in the history section describing the history of what it means to be a gamer. The info about early game journalism isn't related enough to the current controversy that it's worth keeping, and the info about previous harassment can be condensed down to a sentence or two when it's mentioned in other sections. None of it really adds anything to enhance the understanding of gamergate. Kaciemonster (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I was more talking about splitting sections into different ones, not making a new article. Sorry for the confusion. Also the I told you part was a joke. Halfhat (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The background stuff is rather important because it is an attempt to answer "why" this happened by reliable sources. Identifying that we're seeing an evolution in gaming, a change in demographics, and the ease to self-publish as indie and thus make more esoteric and less mainstream projects are all tied to why this is a culture war.

What can be trimmed down is some of the walls of quotes in the later sections, since there are paragraphs that contain 3-4 full length quotes from different people representing the same perspective and opinion. These also make those paragraphs "unreadably" long (more than 10-12 lines on a typical browser screen) Those can be trimmed down to remove the duplicating quotes, or reduced to portions of quotes, to remove those walls of text. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that it doesn't succeed in answering "why" this happened, and it doesn't make clear that it's even what that section is trying to do. All it's doing is making a confusing article even more confusing. It also doesn't change the fact that everything in the history section would provide better context in the sections they belong in. As it is, the article is so overloaded and disorganized that we keep repeating ourselves over and over again so that everything can have the proper context. If the history section did it's job right and provided the right context, we wouldn't need to repeat ourselves.

Ok, so what specifically is the first paragraph in the history section offering for context? All the sources are at the very end of the paragraph and it's extremely difficult to figure out what came from where. In the 4 sources cited, Nintendo Power isn't mentioned once. Can we get that paragraph properly cited and decide what it's offering the article as a whole?

And, for what it's worth, I agree with you about the oversaturation of quotes. If we can cut back on the direct quotes and do some restructuring, the article would be much easier to read. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It needs a lot of work. Enough that doing it all at once should leave a pit in most people's stomachs. I was looking again at the section labelled "Role of misogyny" - you know, the one below "debate (not role) of ethics concerns). And there's Somner's face there under that header that basically reads "misogynist". It's a section that contains only Somners, plus two quotes from people who disagree with Somners. For the life of me I couldn't think of any quick fix for that choice. Basically the entire article is hackily organized like this. Almost none of it makes any sense. I've advocated a full purge and re-write in the past, and I still think that's probably the only way to do it. Only problem is, if a re-write is done, it'll just wind up a mess again when somebody pretends that adding a slant to the article is neutral as long as they include a bunch of confusing wording to obfuscate what's being said. YellowSandals (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, fully protected again, urgh I give up, this article is doomed. Halfhat (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph

Why is the first sentence only saying misgony and harassement?

Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy which started in August 2014, concerning misogyny and harassment in video game culture. Supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement state that they are opposing corruption in video game journalism. Detractors state that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture.

The former text was much better to promoted the different perspective of the case

Gamergate' (sometimes referred to as GamerGate or as hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy centering on misogyny and harassment in video game culture, the role of social commentary in game critiques, ethics in video game journalism and possible conflicts of interest between video game journalists and developers. --Torga (talk) 08:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's only saying that in the first sentence because people completely uninvolved in the months of content disputes recognize that it's the primary focus of the media and adequately separates what constitutes the movement from the controversy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

We present both sides of the claim as to what the movement is. There is no dispute, and can be no dispute, that the overall controversy, as expressed by reliable sources, relates to issues of misogyny and harassment. Virtually every mainstream article frames the issue in the context of misogyny and harassment. The controversy and movement would likely be unencyclopedic if not for the extensive mainstream coverage of those issues. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Just so. I came back after commenting previously in an RfC about the first paragraph, and I think it's pretty balanced and readable now, and matches what my impression is reliable sources report about this issue.  Sandstein  10:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence is patently false however because it ignores the aspect of the supporting side who have clearly claimed it is not about misogy; for sake of simplicity of explaining the basics, the structure is right. For keeping this, it would be better to move the misogyny and harassment part to the sentence about the detractors, and add in the continued harassment, and media's believe the ethics angle is a front. That in three sentences would give the quickest broad overview in a form that is easy to understand which side is which, and matches the common approach that less biased sources describe GG by first explaining the pro side and then the other side, without attributing and immediate qualification on what the controversy actually involves. --MASEM (t) 12:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy which started in August 2014, concerning misogyny and harassment in video game culture." There's no room for opinion there. There's no 'no, no, it's a controversy about ethics!' It's not. The sources prove it. Gamergaters claim their movement is about ethics, but that's another story and is covered later on in the lede. Our sources don't support any claim that gamergate is a 'controversy about ethics in journalism' because none of the 'controversial' events surrounding it have had anything to do with ethics in journalism. -- TaraInDC (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

(other than edited for clarity "controversy" clinging to GG that even from the the initial "see! Zoe! Ethics!!!" the GG claims were patently NOT TRUE) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Fully endorse Masem's suggestion to move the misogyny and harassment part to the sentence about the detractors. It logically fits the timeline. starship.paint ~ regal 13:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No it doesnt. the timeline and all of the reliable sources place the harassment at the very begining - the harassment of Quinn.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the problem is that the controversy is not solely about misogyny or sexism or harassment. When all three parts (misogyny, social commentary, and ethics) were used within the same phrase, that's a much more accurate statement as fair broad statement capturing many different viewpoints in a fell swoop. Limiting it only to misogyny/harassment is presenting only one viewpoint and that's absolutely against NPOV.

Now, to keep it simple based on the way that is already stated as to have a single para attempt to encapsulate everything all sides have said in a neutral POV/tone, this can be changed to Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy in the video game industry which started in August 2014 primarily over social media. Supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement state that they are opposing corruption in video game journalism. Detractors state that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture, and have broadly condemned the movement based on continued sexism, misogyny and harassment predominately towards female figures in the industry attributed to Gamergate supporters. You get both sides quickly, you get the fact that the media absolutely does not like GG, you get the fact that there is misogyny and harassment has been happening and is a central part of the controversy, and is written without WP's voice blaming or praising either side. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Your proposed wording is a massive WP:UNDUE issue. Look at the coverage, for pity's sake. Where is there any evidence of 'controversy' in regards to journalistic ethics? "But ethics!" gets namechecked from time to time, but the news articles are not about the ethics angle, they're about the harassment of women with the audacity to have opinions on the internet. A bunch of people claiming gamergate is about ethics does not an ethics controversy make. This is one of the advantages of making the article about the controversy rather than the movement: the movement's decentralized and proponents can always claim that they're just not being given a fair shake in the media. By writing about the controversy we can stick to what the sources are actually saying, because that's what a 'controversy' is, fundamentally: a discussion in the public sphere. The discussion in the public sphere revolves around the gaming community's treatment of women, not ethics. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, it is absolutely not undue, when we are talking about the more concise (3 sentence), broadest overview in a few sentences, where UNDUE is very difficult to apply. (The rest of the article, sure) The controversy is not strictly over misogyny and harassment, as no one proGG is talking and discussing those factors in any major sense; irregardless of what the press says, that side says it is about ethics, and so to flat out ignore that in a broad overview while putting the opinions of the press that it is all about misogyny and harassment is a complete and utter violation of NPOV. Yes, the predominance of the opinion from the press condemning the movement is important, that's why explaining that part out more in the lead provided the proper treatment of the sides per UNDUE. But we will not be taking the opiniated stance that the press has to write the parts of this article in WP's voice. We'll identify their opinion, and that'll be predominate in this article as it will never have balanced, but Wikipedia cannot condemn Gamergate in its own voice if we are to stay true to NPOV. We have to treat the GG side as one side of a debate, one that we cannot give balanced coverage to, but without blaming them for anything. Any other attempt to change that stance violates NPOV. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence that there's any controversy regarding ethics in gaming journalism. The 'controversy' is not 'gamergate says its about ethics but everyone else has noticed that it has a worrying habit of driving women out of their homes.' If the 'controversy' of gamergate was 'ethics or not ethics?' then that would be the focus of at least a substantial portion of the articles on the subject. This issue is notable because of the ongoing controversy about the treatment of women in the gaming community. That's the sources we have. That's the controversy we're writing about. We do not have to 'treat GG as one side of a debate' and we do not have to give equal coverage to both 'sides' in the lede. This is an article about a controversy, and that controversy is not about game journalism ethics. That's not 'condemning gamergate,' that's simply writing an article that accurately reflects the sources. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There's plenty of evidence that the GG supporters claim it about ethics; the press beg the question if there is this much harassment and this little actual discussion of ethics if this truly is the case. That is an accurate statement. We do not have to 'treat GG as one side of a debate' is 100% against WP:NPOV which tells us to not take a side. This isn't about balance (which can never achieve), this is about neutrality and a neutral that treats both sides as legitimate, even though one side has opined that the other side is not. If you cannot leave your dislike of proGG at the door, you should not be editing this page. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that gaters claim gamergate is about ethics. What I'm saying is that's not what the controversy is about. The discussion of gamergate in the public sphere centers around its treatment of women, not around its claims of journalistic ethics. It's a controversy about misogynistic harassment spawned by a movement that claims to be about journalistic ethics, and while we have sources for those claims, we have no sources for any 'controversies' surrounding ethics that the movement has spawned. Accurately representing the sources we have on this controversy is not 'taking a side.' Claiming that gamergate is a controversy that is even in part about ethics in gaming journalism when all we have are claims to that effect and no real discussion on the issue in the public sphere is a WP:NPOV violation. It's not true that we can never achieve balance. That's what we're working towards now, a balanced presentation of this issue that reflects how the sources are presenting it. Per WP:VALID and WP:BALANCE, "balanced" does not mean "gives equal space to extreme minority views" here on WP.

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. " Neutrality is not about 'treating both sides as legitimate.' It's about representing the sources accurately. We have sources that briefly mention the claim that gamergate is about ethics in journalism in the context of articles about the controversy regarding the harassment the movement has spawned, and some that actively debunk the claims or point out how weak they are considering the targets the movement has chosen. We don't have sources for a 'controversy' about ethics gaming journalism. "Nuh-uh! It's about ethics!" is not in and of itself a 'controversy.'

If you cannot keep your comments focused on the content rather than the contributors, you should not be editing this page. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

See that word "fair"? That's missing in all of this. In this context "fair" means that because there still is non-opinionated attempts to determine what proGG's side is, we treat it as a legitimate group in the discussion. We can report all the claims the press has made to dismiss what they think GG means, which will overwhelm the sources that try to give validity to the proGG claims, that's fine, but that's going to be in the press's voice, not Wikipedia's. That's not what is happening here with edits like this. We have to be neutral in tone, even moreso when we know we cannot be balanced in sourcing. (And I'm speaking the "you" as figuratively of any editor working this article, and not directed at any one specific editor. This also goes for SPAs and the like that want to voice it favoring proGG which we cannot. The behavioral issues tied with the content of this article I've argued at the ArbCom case). --MASEM (t) 18:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

See that word "fair"? That's missing in all of this. In this context "fair" means that because there still is non-opinionated attempts to determine what proGG's side is, we treat it as a legitimate group in the discussion. See WP:WEIGHT. Gamergate does not actually get an 'opinion' on what controversies their movement spawned: we have reliable sources that cover that for us. We can't claim that the 'gamergate controversy' is one about ethics in journalism when there are no sources for that fact, not even in the name of 'balance,' because, as WP:VALID says, "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance." Citing sources that primarily discuss the harassment of women coming out of Gamergate but which briefly mention that gamergaters claim their movement is about ethics in journalism to justify the 'both sides' approach. Gamergaters can argue all they like that they're really about ethics, but they can not claim that they have created a controversy about ethics, because the simple fact is that they have not. The former might be a matter of opinion (though even that's a stretch) but the latter absolutely is not. There is no conversation going on about ethics based on gamergate. There is a great deal of conversation going on about the harassment of women. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"Fair" and "balance" are two separate axes. It is not an attempt to give proGG an "equal validity" because it is impossible to give it any balance. But we can manage the fairness by treating the fact that there is a proGG side, and while vague, they have stated what they'd like to see changed. In a WP voice, failure to give the proGG the benefit of a doubt is a policy-breaking violation of NPOV. After we present the proGG side, we can introduce the fact that the press treats their claims of ethics with incredulity, which is just fine - that's the weight of the sourcing right there. Remember: there are plenty of highly reliable sources that are still giving the GG side the time of day even if in the next breath they deride it, so it remains in WP's best practices and interest to treat the proGG side as a legitimate side of the debate. Failure to do so violates policies left and right. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, we cannot take a feminism viewpoint here and write the article on sympathies for the harassed people. We are clearly going to have much of the opinion on GG factoring in the harassment, no question, but again, in WP's voice, it is not fair to give that side the tone that they are "right" and/or treat the other side as "wrong", without any factual evidence of the specific people involved in the harassment (this is the problem with online harassment, is that the claims of who did it are near impossible to figure out). As such, havign this article assign blame in WP's voice is flat out wrong, because there is no evidence that those supporting GG are to blame. It's likely, but it's not proven. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, we can acknowledge that there is a 'pro-GG side,' such as it is. We're already doing that, in fact. What we can't do is claim that gamergate caused a controversy over journalism ethics when there's no evidence it did. Please provide articles that describe the gamergate controversy as a controversy over journalistic ethics, and not merely ones that mention that the controversy over women's treatment in gaming is one that was started by a group that claims to be concerned with journalistic ethics. Your argument that acknowledging that harassment exists and treating it like what it is - the only genuinely noteworthy element of the movement, per the balance of our sources - is not 'taking a feminism viewpoint.' You are going to have a pretty damned hard time finding credible sources that are going to treat harassment as 'right,' so I really don't know what your point is in even bringing it up. We don't need to say 'harassment is wrong,' and nowhere in the article do we come close to doing so. What we are doing is saying' harassment occurred,' because we are required to reflect what our sources are saying about this issue and that is essentially all that the sources are saying about gamergate. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

First point: note my suggested change: it doesn't assign anything of what the controversy is over, because it still remains unclear. It does establish that the proGG think it's ethics, and then says that the detractors disbelieve that because of the harassment and misogyny. That's fair and balanced to all parties involved. Saying it is only about harassment and misogyny is not.

Second point: It is not the view that harassment is wrong/right; that should be a common morality aspect that it is wrong, and it should be stated where appropriate that the reason proGG is not getting favorable press is due to the harassment attacks believed to be from the proGG side. That's fine. But there's two problems: one there is no factual evidence that the actual members of proGG did the harassment. The harassment was done under the banner of "Gamergate", but no one has linked a self-admitted GG supporter to an harassment attack. I'm sure there are (it would be naive to say otherwise), and the press certainly believes there are, so we're definitely going to say how they believe GG uses harassment as a tool, and even to those that were not doing the harassment, they are playing the guilt-by-association card. But we cannot say "GG supporters performed harassment against these people" as a fact, as there is no evidence for that. Second: while is should be taken as harassment is considered a common sense moral wrong, we don't need to drill this into the reader's head over and over. There are points we should stay to the facts and write clinically; the excessive use of long quotes in the section about the role of sexism and misogyny is clearly written as strongly condemning in WP's voice because we include so many quotes. We can state most of that factually with a few shorter pull-quotes and summation and that will change the tone, so that it is still clear the press consider this all sexist and misogynistic, but not with a tone to keep reminding the reader that "proGG must bad because of all these complaints". --MASEM (t) 20:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no, the sources are quite clear. the controversy is about death threats and misogyny. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. If it were 'unclear' what the controversy is about there would at a minimum be some dissent among reliable sources. There isn't. We are not going to second-guess our sources with regards to 'who is doing the harassment' or why it is happening. They're treating it as the issue of gamergate, and so must we. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There's plenty of dissent in the sources, and the high quality sources absolutely do not describe soley in the fashion of being only about sexism and misogyny. (see the previous Boston Globe article which is the format we should follow; 1) it is a controversy with unclear effects/goals 2) here is what proGG says it is 3) here it was the rest of the world says it is and condmens the proGG side. We are required by policy to be neutral and keep in mind when the press are injecting opinion to try to make it fact. --MASEM (t) 21:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That there is only one reliable source that you can provide has the spin that you prefer is indicative that it is WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Reframe the lead sentence to reflect the topic that is covered by the reliable sources

• The Gamergate controversy concerns misogyny and harassment in video game culture. In August 2014, media began covering actions on the internet which appeared under the umbrella term gamergate (sometimes GamerGate or the hashtag #gamergate) wherein a mostly anonymous or pseudonymous group of individuals without an identified leadership or organization made claims ostensibly about topics such as ethics in games journalism but which included a number of high profile incidents of harassment against women in the industry.

my offering. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Remember report the facts but don't share the opinions of RS, Wikipedia has no opinion. Halfhat (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

and where are you seeing opinion? or are you just making a general comment? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a general comment really, I've pretty much given up on doing much here since they protected it again, I'll still offer the odd comment though. Halfhat (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This looks fine as well. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't work. The controversy is not just about misogyny and harassment; that would be like saying the Iraq War was about the US getting cheap oil - it's true but it is far from the whole story and disenfranchises a whole side from it. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Precisely the example. Our article does not present "but oil" as anything but a minority claim and that that is how the "but ethics" needs to be presented as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Bingo. Protonk (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that's wrong. Not giving the proGG any respect for their cause, just because the press has opted to, is a full out failure of NPOV. We have to give them the benefit of the doubt as the best reliable sources still do. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

uhhhh WP:V WP:OR WP:UNDUE no. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)c

"Not giving the proGG any respect for their cause, just because the press has opted to, is a full out failure of NPOV" Um...no. Protonk (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you guys just let loose and say the Gamergate controversy is an example inhumanity, rooted in blind worship of the evil patriarchy and bereft of the warm light of sex-negative feminism? We had a neutral lead written by a well-meaning someone. Now we have a lead that once again uses Wikipedia's voice to attack the morality of a group, insisting over and over that due weight defeats impartiality or the need to attribute points of view. This is just impossible. What would it take to persuade people here that morality is vague and that it's fundamentally impossible to write an impartial article as long as you insist on establishing a moral judgement on the subject of the article?

This debate goes around in circles. "Establish that the sides of this conflict are points of view." "No, my side is factually correct and the other side is factually evil! It's due weight to prove the other side is evil!" On and on and on. It's clearly ideological to the point of being religious. How is it handled when a page on a controversial religious subject comes under heated dispute? Maybe we should start to approach this thing in those terms. YellowSandals (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I mean, I don't think this issue is just about facts, here. I think there's a fundamental belief system at work that classifies things into very specific containers of good and evil. This ideological approach doesn't allow certain people to even look at the debate as though there were any reasons for it beyond a child-like commitment to Saturday morning cartoon villainy. Some editors apparently don't see mobs or humans. They a see modern version of Satan doing His evil work, and they feel that even giving the devil enough credit to say he's potentially angry about something will leave a chink the armor that will allow demons into the hearts of the people. There's just a stubborn obstinance here that goes above and beyond politics. It would be one thing to be weighting the article to disprove Gamergate's stances - which you are doing - but there's also a very keen effort to make the article attack Gamergate on a moral and ideological level as well, following a misguided assumption that one can factually determine immorality. YellowSandals (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

please focus on article content. (but yes, Harassment and death threats are fundamentally believed by most groups in society to be evil) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I am discussing the content. This article needs a more objective, expository tone. If most groups of society agree with you that Gamergate is an evil organization that must be crushed at all costs, then let Gamergate's evil speak for itself and stop trying to insinuate it into the article. We write impartially for ISIS, the Nazis, the KKK, and everyone else. Why do you need to establish a moral point of view in this article? Are you worried that people are going to think there's something to Gamergate? Because, honestly, when you hear their complaint that they're being smothered by morality police and then you come to this article and find it full of moral policing, it kind of gives credence to their complaints. Maybe you are shooting yourself in the foot. YellowSandals (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, the lack of sources to support your claim is notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"unsubstantiated allegations towards Quinn which were later proven false"

First, let me just say that this article confusing to anyone who doesn't already know anything about the topic. For example, it says that "unsubstantiated allegations towards Quinn which were later proven false". The double-negative is confusing. Does that mean that the unsubstantiated allegations later being proved false meant that they turned out to be true? Or does that mean that unsubstantiated allegations later being proved false turned out to be true meant that they were actually false? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Going back to just "false allegations" would be fine with me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It really should simply be 'false accusations, as there was never really a question if they were true or not: the journalist did not review the game, so how could Quinn have bribed him to review her game by having sex with him? Apparently that was considered too biased against the people doing the accusing, so we have the wording we have. "Later proven false" here likely refers to a statement from the publication which said what was already perfectly clear - that there was no review. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouth's wording here works for me; not sure about everyone else. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

For now, I've changed it back to "false allegations and harassment of Quinn" to remove the double negative. - Bilby (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That sentence keeps going back to silliness. Somebody re-writes it to make sense by saying the allegations were false. Then somebody decides to say the false allegations were false. Then somebody later adds that the utterly untrue falsehood of false allegations were proven, definitively, to be false. I think it's part of an ongoing effort to make it clear who the good guys are bad guys are - such that if the allegations are extremely false, then Gamergate has no legs to stand on and is, as many have argued, factually evil. And this is what I'm talking about when I keep saying there's nowhere the article can go by constantly trying to prove the morality of any parties involved in this thing. You could say what is and leave the article alone, or you constantly change all the wording until nothing makes sense - because if we write a biased sentence and use a ton of neutral qualifying language to try to smooth it out, it just reads like a crazy person wrote it. This needs to stop. YellowSandals (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No. The issue here is that people want Wikipedia to say Zoe Quinn slept with Nathan Grayson to advance her career because they don't believe anything else is the case. By having "false allegations" in the lead, or any variation thereof, it's spitting in the face of the GamerGater who insists that there is no reason for anyone to have slept together other than whatever new conspiracy theory KIA comes up with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much what I said. Anyway, I notice you've been whitewashing the article to get rid of negative things that happened to Gamergate supporters. I'm honestly starting to get tired of this whole thing. It feels too ideological. It's un-fixable because there's too many people here who think that morals and motivations are universally concrete, and they keep changing the article to represent that bent world view. Gradually, because the world really isn't that black and white, this article is going to be full of stupid, misanthropic trivia, some of which will be intentional smears on individual Gamergate supporters, and it's going to look... just, childish. YellowSandals (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

How is it a bent world view to ensure that the article clarifies that the initial accusations that Quinn's relationship with Grayson resulted in positive press for her game were proven wrong when everyone and their mother realized that there was never a review for her game written by Grayson or anyone else at Kotaku? Or are you adhering to the things that we cannot in any possible way write on any Wikipedia page that have been alleged over and over again?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe they're elaborating that biased and ideological editing is ruining the article and misframed and characterized sentences that don't read well is one of the symptoms. Tutelary (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is getting more difficult to word things properly that doesn't cause someone who suddenly remembers their Wikipedia password to rewrite everything because they believe it's biased against their point of view.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

A lot of people see an article spouting nonsense about ingrained evil and immorality, accusatory to the point of sounding desperate, and they think, "Wow, this is pretty biased. Also really badly written. Let me take a crack at this." It gets fixed up for like a day or two, and then the article goes right back to spouting clumsily-worded slurs and accusations. YellowSandals (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not what the article says. That may be how you are interpretting it but that's not my problem or Wikipedia's.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That world view is bent because you've been pushing to add smear pieces into the article. Ridiculous things, like airing out someone's sexual fetishes to prove how misogynistic they are, even though their connection to Gamergate is merely that they moderate a forum for it. A forum I've visited after getting started on this thing - and I notice they mention certain Wiki editors by name there. One might wonder if you wanted to include that smear piece for personal reasons. But then again, I would believe it if you said you thought you weren't biased. That's what's crazy - I think a lot of people here believe they are doing the right thing, and that's why the article not only won't, but can't get its act together. YellowSandals (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a forum where the Japanese word for "murder" was associated with my screenname. But I have no beef with any of the moderation team unless they truly make things personal, but I would not act that out on Wikipedia. I didn't originally write the paragraph that cited BuzzFeed after all. I just argued that it wasn't a BLP vio.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Going forum here but seeing as this refers to me, just a clarification, the "murder" thing you refer to, was a nod at Ryu_(Street_Fighter). It's a joke by admins towards you, that you have "a desire to kill", or calling you Evil Ryu, please don't take a joke from video games seriously Loganmac (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Because you know gamergate has nothing to do with harassment and death threats, because actually its about ethics in games journalism and you should only take death threats seriously when they are serious death threats and not insider jokes made at outsiders. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That's the second time I've seen you spamming your personal blog, I just explained it's not a death threat, it's associating him the name of Evil Ryu, in any case I didn't make that joke so I don't get get why he's complaining about it on Wikipedia, it was KiA mods, and as far as I'm aware none of them have accounts here Loganmac (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@YellowSandals, I can't comment on what is driving others in regard to how we word the issue, but I really don't care about how it looks in regard to GG, one way or the other. It is a simple BLP issue - we need unambiguous wording because the allegations were fully disproven. We also have the additional concern that the false allegations were part of the harassment she received and helped drive further harassment - thus we need to be careful so as not to compound the situation. Mind you, I don't know why this keeps coming back to Quinn, as I gather that GG is actually about ethics in game journalism. gG supporters really should back off from allegations that aren't even significant any more and focus on things that matter. - Bilby (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as one that has tried to understand this point: there's an argument that we cannot say that Quinn and Grayson's relationship is false (in fact, Kotaku affirms they have one), and that facet should be included in the initial allegation. There's also that point to that the allegation of using the romance to get "positive press" (not a review) and then subsequently pointing out that Grayson did include DQ at a point that was "near enough" in the relationship that this could have been an issue. We definitely can't include these, but maybe that we can say "While Quinn and Grayson did begin to have a closer relationship around April 2014, the allegations that she used this for positive press were proven false." We cannot address any other factor here, and the press definitely has not considered these other factors to be even remotely an issue (the Game Jam mention was when they were definitely corresponding, feeding the larger issue of disclosures, but the press is basically treating the idea that this specific instance being a severe problem as FRINGE-y.) We should be very exact here of what the false accusation is. --MASEM (t) 06:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you instead use the neutral statement that is used ANYWHERE when a first-party denies something "These claims weere denied by Nathan Grayson and Kotaku's editor-in-chief Stephen Totilo"? I know sources haven't covered it, but there's other stuff people here are implicated with that deal with Patreons but obviously even discussing this in specifics is BLP so... Loganmac (talk) 06:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Because people looking independently from the outside in see no review by Grayson for Depression Quest. And if you can't raise an issue without violating BLP then it's not something that should even be remotely mentioned on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Not my argument but there is claims that the GAME JAM piece is evidence of their claim being true. Obviously the press doesn't agree (a # have identified that GAME JAM article exists but don't consider it really usable evidence. In reality, the statement would be something like "The media widely considered the claim of Quinn using her romantic relationship with Grayson to get positive press to be false based on statements made by Kotaku and Grayson (and Quinn?), and the lack of any significant coverage of DQ at sites Grayson wrote for after the time their relationship started". But that's super chunky for a lede. --MASEM (t) 06:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

As has been explained here 10,000 times, every mainstream reliable source treats them as false because they are provably factually false. If you can't even admit that the purported review literally never existed then your goal is to insert categorical falsehoods about a living person into the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

For all purposes, the only claim that can be proven false is "Grayson wrote a review of DQ after the relationship", as no such review exists. Every other variant, we are saying it has been refuted (which is not saying it's false, just that the evidence suggests it is not, or that if it is, it's such a minor/triviality to not matter as a moral wrong) based on Kotaku/Grayson's statement of the timeline, and how the press has not considered anything like the GameJam article to be a problem here. They haven't been shown false because there might have been things happening that we simply cannot tell. (Completely hypothetical, but perhaps a member of Kotaku was in the process of writing a DQ review but when GG broke, they dropped it fast.) But, in terms of writing this article and considering the press, we simply don't care about the 'threading the needle" arguments to try to say why the claims were false. This is why saying "refuted" or a similar, non-absolute word is true and more reflective of the situation; "false" is too much of an absolute for what the allegation actually is. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The claims are false and were shown to be false early on. There's no reliable source out there which regards the claims as true. The only "threading the needle" going on is by those who want us to be unjustifiably credulous of an accusation made by a jilted ex. The central, early claim in GG was that ZQ fucked her way into press coverage. If you want our article to treat that universally rejected claim as merely "refuted" then go ahead and say so but don't piss on me and tell me it's raining. Protonk (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Masem, the fact that Quinn and Grayson had a relationship is not treated as meaningful by any significant reliable source. There is nothing unethical, wrongful or of public interest about two private people having a relationship. Journalistic outlets are not in the business of investigating relationship drama. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm coming back to this being a statement that keeps getting challenges, and if we had to, we can use Kotaku's refutting statement that established they had a relationship at the time, but Grayson never wrote anything about DQ after. I just known that there is a lot of complaints from proGG people on how this accusation seems to be hand-waved away and their actually accusations not really addressd in full, which I agree with you that we can't do a thing about. --MASEM (t) 06:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

How is this triumph of nonexistent research still being discussed? Yes, Nathan Grayson only ever wrote one article about Zoe Quinn FOR KOTAKU--the story about the failed game jam. What most sources omit or (inexplicably) deny is that he additionally wrote about her for Rock Paper Shotgun, as seen here: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/08/admission-quest-valve-greenlights-50-more-games/ This is not a review. It's supposed to be coverage on a batch of 50 games that were being added to Steam Greenlight. Quinn's game "Depression Quest" is the first of only three games--again, of fifty--mentioned in the article text (where it's referred to as a "powerful Twine darling"), and one of two games mentioned in the tags. The illustration is a "Depression Quest" screenshot. Even the title of the article is a reference to "Depression Quest". Pointing out that this was published before the sexual phase of their relationship is fine, but pretending it doesn't exist because demonstrable positive press/arguable favoritism derails a political position is clearly not. You don't "disprove" things by not doing your damn homework. Tevildoii (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

1. It's not a review, it's a couple-line mention and 2. There's no evidence of any link to the relationship, as it was written four months before the relationship began, by Eron Gjoni's own timeline. No reliable source has considered it a meaningful issue. One can make up all sorts of hypothetical issues based on no evidence at all whatsoever, but unsupported insinuations and synthesis about living persons have no place on Wikipedia.

In the real world, journalists are human beings. They make acquaintances and relationships in the process of their work. They are not robotic monks, and no code of ethics anywhere prohibits a journalist from having a relationship with someone else. Ethics codes certainly do prohibit journalists from writing about people who they are in a close personal relationship with (at least, without disclosure), but as has been repeatedly demonstrated, that didn't happen in this case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I stipulated that it was not a review and that it predated the sexual relationship. You're missing the point. From the much-cited Newsweek article: "Grayson only wrote about Quinn once, for a story on a failed reality show, and that was before they were in a relationship, according to Stephen Totilo, the editor-in-chief of Kotaku and Grayson’s boss." Other sources have said much the same thing. If the statements you use to prove something false are themselves provably false, perhaps your RSes aren't so R this time around. Tevildoii (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Or they consider it so trivial that it doesn't even bear mentioning. I mean, it's not about Quinn. It's not really about Depression Quest, either. A grand total of five words are spent on the game. That's the type of article that, if we were discussing the notability of Depression Quest, wouldn't even count as a source. Woodroar (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to point out that playing coy games about how the accusations about Quinn could have been true if you ignore almost all the facts is apparently just about the only way to get topic banned from this article. The 'narrative' is well established by reliable sources - gamergate is based on a fabricated sex scandal cooked up to destroy a woman's life. Sorry, but them's the facts. There is no room for any further discussion of who Zoe Quinn may or may not have had sex with and when. -- TaraInDC (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No. The problem is not notability but factuality. The existence of articles such as http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/03/22/gdc-video-oculus-rift-papers-please-gone-home/ and the previously-cited "Admission Quest" disprove the assertion that Grayson only wrote about Quinn once. Totilo may be misspoken or been misinformed--we don't know. What we do know is that the claim is untrue. Responsible editing does not allow the use of dated and inaccurate information. Tevildoii (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:TRUTH. Just because you can pull this Rock Paper Shotgun article out of your ass to go "LOOK!!!1 CORRUPTION IN VIDYA JOURNALISMO" doesn't mean that it has any bearing on what goes on Wikipedia. No one writing about this topic has even bothered with that piece that was written months before anything actually happened in GamerGate so using it as evidence to the contrary is not how Wikipedia works.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, so Quinn appeared with Grayson and several other journalists and developers in a video panel discussion about video games in March 2014. This is supposed to be evidence of... what, exactly? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Totilo did not say what you believe he said. What Totilo said was that "On March 31, Nathan published the only Kotaku article he's written involving Zoe Quinn..." Which is demonstrably true. So no, the claim is not untrue and responsible editing requires that we use reliably-sourced statements to demonstrate such. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you guys started posting MS Paint diagrams yet? Artw (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Syringe & other harassment

Syringe

I'm making a new thread on this so it can be free of all of the previous nonsense.

Milo Yiannopoulos's tweet about being sent a syringe is reported in single sentences in everything that was used to cite it. Here's what is used to cite it

• Kotaku: "[UPDATE: It should be noted that Gamergate people have complained of harassment as well. The pro-Gamergate reporter Milo Yiannopoulos, for example, Tweeted a photo several weeks ago of a syringe with fluid in it, presumably mailed to him by someone who dislikes him or his work. He mostly appeared to laugh it off.]"
• 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...."
• Reason.com: "Yiannopoulous also received a jiffy bag in the mail containing a syringe."

This is literally all there is out there regarding this syringe. A syringe he threw out rather than give to the police to examine. This is a non-issue and as such I've removed it from the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You were just trying to write an entire paragraph based on a single source, yet you're attempting to throw out 3 very good reliable sources to demonstrate a sentence in its due weight. That's a double standard. It achieved its due weight and as such deserves a place in the article. If this notion of due weight carries at least 3 sources = no mention at all, I'll be glad to be the one balancing it. Tutelary (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem very intent on throwing a hissy fit on this article over a single fucking sentence. Do you really not recognize the distinction between the massive content additions you are making based off a single source and a single sentence backed by three sources? Those sources, mind you, are generally giving an overview of various issues in GamerGate and thus them all seeing fit to mention the syringe incident suggests it is warranted to mention it here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Both of you continually ignore my issues with the level of coverage the syringe has received in these three sources with the proclamation that the sources themselves are good and therefore anything that they have in them can be written about on this page. This is the same complete lack of understanding that has plagued this offsite. Again, the level of coverage of this non-event in three sources does not satisfy including it in the article. My issue is not with these three sources. I am not saying that these three sources are not reliable. I am saying that using them to support the syringe event is disingenuous when the quotes I've pulled above are all that these have to say about it. So, instead of attacking me for thinking that I think that Kotaku, TechCrunch, and Reason are not reliable sources (which again is not' what I'm saying here), comment on why the syringe needs to be mentioned on Wikipedia when it is an afterthought in two articles, a single sentence in one, and evidently not something that the target thought much of.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

We're giving the syringe the same level of coverage with the sources: one sentence. I think that's fine. starship.paint ~ regal 23:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

One sentence in very few sources is still giving it undue weight.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Rest of paragraph

Now onto the other citations in the paragraph.

• The Washington Post serves as suitable sourcing for the criticism and harassment sent to women as part of the #notyourshield tag and the one man leavng his home.
• Vice and Stuff suitably source the threat to Boogie's wife.
• The Inquisitr is a problem here. It misgenders someone it is reporting on. It alludes to a lot without supporting it (out of respect for those affected, allegedly) and there is nothing here about an editorial team and if we're calling out clickbait sites like BuzzFeed and Cracked as usual it has the same submission type process and Frye's previous writing experience for the Inquisitr is almost exclusively on WWE.

The paragraph needs to be rewritten to remove Frye's research, just like the Buzzfeed and Death and Taxes stuff has been challenged.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I cannot say much more about Inquisitr other than what I have already said. I have looked at the backgrounds of dozens of their writers and editors and found that the vast majority have degrees in journalism and/or professional journalistic or writing experience. The thing you do not seem to understand is that I was never arguing that BuzzFeed is unreliable as I do consider them reliable as a source. I argued that you were giving that one article undue weight, because you were adding a massive paragraph and treating their allegations as fact. You stomping around and hewing and crying is just POINTy behavior and Baranof is now engaging in the same. That you are engaging in such persistent disruption out of annoyance with the fact that we mention numerous instances of GamerGate supporters being harassed speaks volumes.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The sourcing to support this content is minimal in the sources cited and barely being touched upon by more reliable sources. Death and Taxes is gone. Buzzfeed is gone. I removed the paragraph I wrote that I found on The Frisky is gone now too because it would probably fall under the same "SpinMedia's Terms of Service" explanation. Frye's experience on The Inquisitr is reporting on pro-wrestling and not on video games or other culture pieces. Boogie's stuff can say. The stuff Tsukayama reported on can stay. Frye's misgendering of someone he's reported on and the various other claims he's making are only reported by him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Buzzfeed has actually been restored by Protonk in this edit for 'Breaks existing refs. Also no consensus that BF's news side is unreliable'. Also does an article having a mistake mean we can't use it? I also sent them a contact for some specifics on their structure of editorial control, and am still researching that bit. Tutelary (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I was more referring to the "KotakuInAction's mods mod these other boards" issue from the other day.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The "misgendering" claim you are making is false, because if you looked at the cited link you would see the twitlonger contains the same name used in the Inquisitr piece. Your claim about him only writing about wrestling is so demonstrably false it is hilarious because in like ten seconds of looking at his other writing credits it is clear his work for Inquisitr extends well beyond wrestling. You aren't even trying anymore. We should roll back to this revision, because there is too much POINTy quibbling going on right now. Only constructive change was correcting "Gatergate" in the lede to "GamerGate" while the rest just needs to be undone.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking into that person's profile shows they wish to be called "Alexandra" but they obviously still have to go by "Alexander" in their public life. But that is perhaps looking too much into it. The issue still stands that Frye's coverage is the only coverage of a lot of these matters. The claims of being threated to be outed as transgender, the claims that jobs were lost, the claims that business was lost, etc. Tsukayama's piece for The Washington Post and the piece on Vice are stronger claims that support various other statements in the paragraph.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Those claims cited to Inquisitr are exactly two sentences and one isn't even very long. You again seem incapable of recognizing the distinction between such modest content and what you have been doing in response.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, since you mention Vice, you may want to look a little closer there, because it also mentions the syringe incident.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"I’m no fan of pro-GG journalist Milo Yiannopoulos, for example, but this is pretty fucked up." did not show up when I began searching "syringe" but that's just another "strong" source making a passing mention of this event in the long run of things. Four websites saying "oh yeah, this happened" in their larger discussions on the problems at hand does not in my opinion qualify for coverage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I really don't get why we should be asking him persmission every single time a new subject is made on the talk page. Taking out the syringe threat mention when there are 3 articles on previously considered "reliable" sources, and when even more sources cite harassment to proGG is ridiculous Loganmac (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You haven't read my arguments. I am not arguing against the reliability of these sources as is constantly accused of me. I am arguing that single sentences in four different places do not support that the syringe is something of note for this article. Read my arguments for once instead of dismissing me as being "anti-GG" in your eyes. This is bordering on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory considering I have to insist this fact every time I question why the syringe has to be mentioned here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead with my plan to undo a lot of the POINTy editing that took place during this dispute. There are specific issues with the material Ryulong has been adding to this article and there are specific issues with the source DeathAndTaxes and these are not similar issues to those alleged with the material or sources being removed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You just blanket reverted a lot of stuff. Death and Taxes' piece is gone. I removed a similar section from another SpinMedia blog that you restored. Stop accusing me of violating WP:POINT.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted TDA's bullshit. It is time to take stand here in the name of reality and common fucking sense. There is no middle ground. Reliable sources have overwhelmingly come down against "ethics" as a motivator for Gamergate. It is about harassment of women for voicing opinions, originating from lies told by a jilted ex. It is about threats to commit mass murder if a woman speaks at a university, it is about the hundreds upon hundreds of messages send to Zoe Quinn's father threatening to rape and murder his daughter. Enough is fucking enough, this article will no longer be dictated by reddior man-children and their sycophants. Tarc (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Editors who disagree with you are absolutely not your enemy and you are instructed to thereby try collaborate them to pursue a better article. Labeling them insults doesn't do that. Tutelary (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You removed something from a different media property of the company that was basically opinion and it was one of several "well, if we can't accept this then I'll just remove this so nyah nyah" edits that you and Baranof engaged in over this dispute. If you insist on keeping it out then that is fine, but it was definitely a POINTy action.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If it was as poorly sourced as the bribery piece then it goes out too. And the Inquisitr is not a reliable source. There is no reason to even bother mentinioning Milo's syringe because despite the fact there are four reliable sources citing it, it is such a minor aspect of the whole. But that wasn't removed yet. You need to stop edit warring to restore the pro-GG narrative and restoring content that's essentially saying "she hit me back".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if you'd quit it with the ideological 'pro gg narrative' stuff then maybe this article could have a chance at actually being neutral with no edit wars. Edits do not have an ideology. They have content. You should evaluate them based on the policies and guidelines, not because they show one person as more favorable or disfavorable as the others. Tutelary (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Frye's piece is not a reliable source. TDA is effectively erasing 8 hours of constructive editing. Just because he gets online now does not mean the two of you get to disrupt the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

TDA is reverting a bold series of edits by North. It doesn't become consensus merely because it's been a few hours. Trying to revert to an earlier series of content is not disruptive, it's contesting the other edit which has not achieved consensus. The Frye's piece I don't believe was used in that series of edits. Nonetheless, we've already covered this. Three RS is due weight for the content of the syringe. Tutelary (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof is not the only editor he is reverting. Picking one name you're opposed to in the 50 or so edits being blanket reverted does note excuse your actions to revert many constructive edits. And the syringe is a non-event being used by the GamerGate movement to go "look at what these fucking SJWs did to based Nero" (or whatever they call him).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, we can't build an encyclopedia if you're going to assume the people's motives of which are editing the page. Just please stop thinking that way. I can't assume that you're some shill hired by Gawker to procure the article, and you can't assume I'm some manchild reigned to minimize the harassment of women. Assumptions and crude humor aside, it's directly supported by [28], [29], and [30]. Given these three sources, it meets due weight. I don't want to rehash discussions at lower sections, so I'll just assume it's the same. It's verifiable, no original research is needed to extract the content, and it's adequate to the section. I will look forward to hearing your dissent. Tutelary (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's an irrelevant footnote. The number of sources doesn't matter. It's the level of coverage in those sources. It doesn't matter how many news pieces you can find to link to this tweet and spend a sentence on it to make it relevant for the whole that is GamerGate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Why does the level of sourcing not matter? If there are a good amount of sources, we are required to add it per WP:DUE and its due weight. We can't decide to omit it if it's reliable sourcing, which it is. For comparison, Zoe Quinn's announcement of harassing was in tweets and see how it made the article. That also got a ton of news reporting on it, using the tweets and the like, not to the level of Milo, but it's the same basic thing. Tweets received media coverage (rs) and got put into the article. Tutelary (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's completely the opposite of due weight. It's an afterthought on two pieces and a single sentence in two others. And Zoe Quinn is the reason this shit hit the fan. It's expected that there's a plethora of shit about what happened to her.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I was using it as an example to demonstrate that news pieces linked to her tweets as they did with Milo's, not to the necessity that Zoe Quinn wasn't central to it. Are you arguing that the basis of content divulged from those articles is not synonymous with the content added? Tutelary (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying that this event is being given undue weight considering the level of coverage it received compared to everything else out there that is GamerGate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You were earlier saying that they were only briefly mentioned in the articles that they inspired, and that may have been a concern that may have been remedied with discussion. But if you're saying that with the sources themselves, due weight is not met, I don't believe there's much to discuss if that. I don't think I can convince you otherwise. Tutelary (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This edit was done manually and the only true reverts in the mix were of you, North, and Countered (an edit done with a deceptive edit summary). This edit undid a total of three edits, and only this good edit was caught in the revert.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Countered changed the description from a movement to a hashtag. How is that a deceptive edit summary?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Look reeeeeeeeal closely.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

So the only reason you're casting blame on him is because he removed "Other incidents of harassment and threats targeting men and women on both sides of the debate occurred, prompting calls for calm." in his edit?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw that removal earlier, and agree it should have not been removed. It shows a neutral statemetn that both sides are trying to defuse the situation, and it should not have been removed to maintain NPOV. -MASEM (t) 06:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Go spend 5 minutes reading Zoe Quinn's twitter feed. I dare you to actually empathize with another human being for a moment rather than taking your damned wiki-handle so literally. Then go read the dozens of reliable sources that confirm that this is all about harassment and hardly anything about "ethics". Your changes water the whole thing down to a case of equal abuse. IT ISN'T. Tarc (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The 'changes' were bold edits by North and TDA reverted, WP:BRD. You restoring the edits runs afoul of BRD and is not good practice overall. I admittedly should've reverted them when they happened to contest them but TDA shouldn't be punished for doing it later. Tutelary (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

TDA is reverting 8 hours of work because the Frye piece in the Inquisitr was removed and a bunch of other people edited the article constructively. There was no reason to make this massive revert of multiple editors.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted all but one edit that I intended to revert and I was working to restore it as stated in my edit summary before you reverted me.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I have read her Twitter feed plenty. The idea that a single paragraph in the article and a single sentence in the lede is treating it as a case of "equal abuse" is quite absurd. Quinn gets four whole paragraphs about her back-to-back, many of them much larger than the one you guys insist on trimming, and her opinion is splattered all across this article. Sarkeesian gets two to three paragraphs solely about harassment, Phil Fish actually gets half a paragraph that is is about as big as the minimal paragraph you insist on having about harassment of GamerGate supporters, and Brianna Wu gets slightly more attention than that. The idea that a single paragraph detailing the harassment of the dozens or people supporting GamerGate who have been harassed is giving them "equal weight" is really quite ridiculous.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"Her opinion is splattered all across this article" because she was the one who was viciously, disgustingly and falsely attacked by a bunch of anonymous Internet trolls to get this whole sordid affair started, as umpteen squillion reliable sources discuss. See, on Wikipedia we don't let faceless mobs control the narrative about a living person. We learned that lesson ten years ago, the hard way.

If GamerGate didn't want to give Quinn, Wu and Sarkeesian an international platform to talk about their issues, maybe it shouldn't have made their lives into international news. I'm shocked, shocked to find out that mainstream media sources consider violent threats and harassment against three women who aren't gaming journalists to be rather thin evidence of GamerGate's concerns for "journalism ethics" issues. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That's nice and all, but the key point there was that we are hardly giving the harassment of GamerGate supporters more weight than the harassment any of them have faced as individuals by devoting numerous paragraphs to discussing their individual cases, while having one lonely paragraph to run down all the harassment faced by GamerGate supporters.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot take a side in this. Yes, personally, seeing how much noise Quinn is getting is saddening and I have zero sympathy for her harassers. However, when I am editing this article page, all that emotional aspects must be left at the door; we cannot edit in a reactionary manner if we are going to keep to NPOV --MASEM (t) 06:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

well, dear, do you not recognize the quite emotional front you are presenting in your attempts to valiantly save the honor of the poor poor mistreated gamergaters? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Removal "False allegations against Quinn and subsequent harassment" section due to lack of proof

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.

---

Hello. I am writing this suggestion from not having taken a side on the #GamerGate controversy. I think that this sentence and section (mentioned in title) in particular should be removed UNTIL a source backing up this claim (specifically the one on false allegations) is found for both sides of the argument: "This led to harassment of Quinn, including false accusations that the relationship had led to positive coverage of Quinn's game". I read all of the cited sources in the section related to this claim (specifically sources [14][20][3][21]), and maybe this is just me (correct me if it is), but I did not find anything in any of the articles mentioned saying that the allegations of positive coverage of Quinn's game due to a relationship with one of the employees at Kotaku were "false". I think the person(s) who cited those sources and the person(s) who contributed to the section is/are forgetting that the #GamerGate community did not say that the one person in particular Quinn had an affair with was responsible for writing an article them-self, but rather that this affair led Kotaku to put up a positive review of the game (this review has since been removed from Kotaku's site from what I am aware of). Because of this, I believe the section was intentionally not written from a neutral point of view. I am also suspicious of the fact that this section is right at the very top, rather than closer to the end of the article (where I believe it should be). The fact of the matter is, that there is no proof to back up claims from either side and therefore I think it is necessary that the section be removed to avoid further controversy.

Note: I understand there is proof of harassment, but I only put there because it is the title of the section. I have nothing against that particular subject
[[THEO!|User:Tjraptis20]] (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the accuser to prove their claims, not on the accused to disprove the claims. The wording will stand as-is. Tarc (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I keep looking for the teapot circling the sun and until someone proves it's not there I'm going to believe in it. Countered (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments on closing of my previous discussion

I mentioned in said discussion that I did not have anything against harassment claims, and the discussion appears to be closed because "The reliable sources clearly have covered the harassments". Can someone please explain to me what I am missing here?
[[THEO!|User:Tjraptis20]] (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Your acknowledgment of harassment is recognized; as is your absurd request to not cover the most covered aspect of the situation. WP:UNDUE will not be tossed out the window. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)}}

Red Pen, don't close discussions when you clearly have a certain POV regarding it. It's not helpful and is certainly biting the person. Tutelary (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

#GamerGate is not a "minority". As mentioned by Tutelary, you clearly do not have a neutral point of view on this subject. You would help the article more if you allowed people to question its integrity, rather than trying to silence them by closing their discussion and calling their requests "absurd" [[THEO!|User:Tjraptis20]] (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate is very much a minority POV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Based on previous encounters me and you have had, I have tons of reason to believe that you are biased on this topic too. Please do not leave these kinds of comments as they serve no purpose in finding a solution to this problem. [[THEO!|User:Tjraptis20]] (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You do not get a veto over who can respond to your posts on an article talk page. You made a statement, apparently in response to the WP:UNDUE argument, that GamerGate isn't a minority. That's not true, as a cursory review of sources will reveal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I have already viewed the sources. GamerGate is NOT a minority. Look, this discussion has been over for a long time. There is really no point in continuing it further. Also, I never said I had "veto power over who can respond to my posts on an article talk page". The point I was trying to get across was that you making these comments is not helping anything [[THEO!|User:Tjraptis20]] (talk) 01:50, 3 November 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.

Post by someone claiming to be significant to GG

http://gamergate.me/2014/10/notyourshield-uprising/ He says he created the "NotYourSheild" hastag, which I think would make his opinion significant, I can't find anyway to verify it though. Halfhat (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Logically it should be. But that isn't how wikipedia works. Wikipedia will only allow "reliable sources" even if said reliable sources are third party propaganda machines with as much reliability as and evil regime trying to spin the truth in order to stay in power. Meanwhile even if there is evidence of the opposite, wikipedia rules do not allow such sources unless these sources can be confirmed by some "reliable thirdparty source". The rational for this is so that only things that can be "confirmed" will be hosted on Wikipedia, but as I just pointed out -- this only plays into the hand of established media and why wikipedia rules fail at actually being factual or even a reliable source of information. I mean, have you never wondered why people scoff at people that link to wikipedia as proof that they are right? It's because wikipedia is itself not a reliable source... even wikipedia roundabout admits this as per their own definition, you can't use a wikipedia article as reference and source when writing another wikipedia article. So to answer your question -- no, unless some "reliable source" (lol) can confirm that this man is who he says he is and that he is actually the person that wrote the article, then per WB rules and stuff, it wont be allowed here or something. As such, this is why I think the whole GG conspiracy article should be voted for deletion and being purged. As it is right now there is maybe 10% truth to it and the rest just propaganda.--Thronedrei (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll- Merge the Diversity and inclusivity section in GamerGate activism

Merge the section into the older Presence of misogyny and inclusiveness in Role of misogyny and antifeminism. It could do with being trimmed too. Halfhat (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

How can we go about deciding what opinions to remove

So I do think we need a process to remove a lot of the opinions, but how exactly? We have to be careful to represent opinions fairly, and I think we may need a tactic. One idea is to clone the page with remove all opinions, then start adding them back in, but we can't do this on a case by case basis, or we will just end up at square one. This isn't as simple as you'd think. Halfhat (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hey Halfhat. Can you remove or refactor the straw poll sections below? I don't think any of those needs a structured "poll/discussion" format (and in some cases it might be more trouble than it's worth). In most cases you could just leave each as a proposal and if they appear to have consensus make a protected edit request to remove them. Protonk (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well they include removing signifcant sections, I also had no idea how the community here would react. It seems not at all. Halfhat (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I should've been more clear. You don't need to remove them, but I don't think preloading a "straw poll" format is necessary or valuable. That's all. Protonk (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It's kind of a tough question because no matter how we do it, it's going to end up time consuming. We could remove any opinion that's only mentioned in one source, but even that ends up with us having to reevaluate the 100-something articles we have referenced now. Maybe we could start by looking at one section at a time and figuring it out that way. Semi-related to the section topic: I think that we should, as a group, decide on exactly what criteria we want a source to meet to be used in the article. That way, we don't need have to have a long, draining discussion on whether or not an article can be used every time a new one is presented. I realize that Wikipedia has guidelines and standards for this, but I think we should take steps to try to avoid a situation like what happened with the last Buzzfeed article that was proposed. What do you think? Kaciemonster (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track with the "more than one source" idea. A lot of the article is "A said X, B said Y, C said Z," and so on. If we can at least condense those down to an umbrella statement with those articles as citation it would help quite a bit. For example that "Social Criticism" part can have a broad statement, then quotes from (for example - not a proposed change) just Kain and Moody as representative of a couple divergent views of it. Even if we end up leaving most of the quotes in, adding a summary statement beings some focus. In terms of re-researching all the sources, if we assume that the most pertinent bits are the ones already quoted it cuts down on the work. If re-reading everything ends up having to be done, doing it an article paragraph at a time at least makes the job more bite-sized. This suggestion hasn't gotten traction before, but maybe we're at a point where it's more useful.TuxedoMonkey (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess the next step is... to figure out the next step? I feel like this is the kind of discussion that would benefit from input from more people. I think if we remove a bunch of opinions from the article, they'll just be put back in again after a few hours. That's ignoring the fact that the article is fully protected right now anyway. Kaciemonster (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

As you pointed out, it's protected for a couple days. Pick a paragraph, write a replacement, suggest it on the talk page (normally, not as request for edit on protected page). Most of the broad discussions have degenerated, but hopefully having some specific wording to discuss will keep things on-point and inspire constructive input. TuxedoMonkey (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

New BBC article

Link here. Look at how they wrote the introduction: Games publishers and industry figures must "stand-up and condemn" the movement referred to as "GamerGate", developer Zoe Quinn has told the BBC. Ms Quinn has been at the centre of a furore which some argue is about ethics in journalism, but others consider to be a largely misogynist hate campaign. See how they frame it? This is how we should frame our lead too. Hedging with the word "consider" and correct order, IMO. Other quotes: While the relationship happened, the review did not ... Analysis of discussion about GamerGate has indicated that misogynist abuse - and vitriolic messages in general - is not limited to either "side" of the argument. Journalist Allum Bokhari, a writer for TechCrunch, has said there was credible evidence that at least one well-known trolling group was "working to provoke both sides against each other". starship.paint ~ regal 23:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"It's actually about ethics in video game journalism" isn't the majority viewpoint on this so Wikipedia should not frame it as such either. Also Allum Bokhari is already cited so maybe we just need to take more from his piece.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

[31] Ostensibly about ethics in video-game journalism, the movement quickly targeted "social justice warriors," most of them women, who questioned the portrayal of women in video games as well as the treatment of women in the community. [32] Ostensibly about ethics in video game journalism, that cause was quickly overshadowed when some gamers took to social media sites and comment sections to attack women who suggested that video games, and the culture surrounding them, was profoundly misogynistic. [33] Ostensibly, Gamergate is the response to an indigenous movement among people who play and make video games to protest what they allege is a lack of objectivity and professional ethics in the small world of game industry journalism. The brutal truth, though, is that it Gamergate has its origins in a relationship gone bad. [34] What ostensibly began as hashtag activism with a stated goal of more ethical conduct in gaming journalism was co-opted into something much more serious and much more troubling. [35] The movement, which is ostensibly about upholding ethics in video game journalism, is actually more about harassing women, according to a Newsweek analysis of Twitter data released this weekend. [36] This latest “-gate” is ostensibly a movement dedicated to improving the ethical standards of gaming journalism. But its highest-profile accomplishment has been large-scale harassment aimed at women who work in game development or who write about gaming. [37] ...for many inside and outside the gaming community the ostensible 'aims' of #GamerGate have long been overrun by the actions of a hateful and reactionary mob. I think this is enough. For now.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This article [38] Isn't about Gamergate at all. The writer only says that people have been harassed online before gamergate. She then seems to draw some odd conclusions that since people have been harassed online before GG, that GG might be about harassment even though GG condemns harassment? Brilliant.--Thronedrei (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, pretty clear we need to describe the ethics angle first so that we can explain the doubt the press has, instead of putting the cart before the horse. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

So "ostensibly about ethics in video games journalism, but..."?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

... Protonk (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, with "ostensibly" being defined as "Seemingly", though with a somewhat negative bent. They put it first as to be able to concise explain that people thing this is a front for harassment instead. To explain it in reverse makes it very hard to write about the press's opinion. This is how every other controversy or controversial group is treated, to present the side seeking change first, and then rebuttals to that. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Why should we privilege the "seeming" over the actual? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia does not take sides in debates. We cover both side in a fair, and in this case, balanced to the degree that the sources will allow (read: very little discussion of the proGG side, but still some) tone as to neither praise nor blame either side. --MASEM (t) 23:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

well yes, but to put the "seeming" forward of the "actual" doesnt "not take sides" , in fact that's doing the opposite. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There's two separate issues here. When we describe the movement, I'm fine with "GamerGate is a movement which is ostensibly about ethics in video games journalism, but has become notable for large-scale misogynistic harassment of women in gaming." I can agree to that.

But the controversy is not about "ethics in video games journalism' because, as is demonstrable, reliable mainstream sources give little or no space to the ostensible "ethics" claims (in large part because the movement has no coherent platform of what its claims are, beyond the long-discredited ones about Zoe Quinn). Rather, they focus almost entirely on the issues surrounding the movement's misogynistic harassment of notable female figures in video gaming. The mainstream public debate about GamerGate has nothing to do with journalism ethics and everything to do with harassment of women. So when we say "Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy which started in August 2014, concerning misogyny and harassment in video game culture," that is true and NPOV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Heck, I would be fine with the sentence you use above that nearly repeats the sources. And no, the press is not all about the harassment, the better sources give some time (nowhere as much but more than just FRINGE) to the proGG side, which is being ignored here. The proGG has a seat at this table if we are writing neutrally regardless of the press opinion (which remember, that's what it is , just opinion; they factually acknowledge there is a movement but question its goals), and the current attempts at writing this article is denying them that. --MASEM (t) 23:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You are cherry-picking what is very often the only mention of 'ethics' in these articles and ignoring their overall content. An article that briefly mentions that gamergate claims to be about ethics in journalism and then goes on to discuss yet another instance of a woman being hounded out of her career or her home is simply giving context for the controversy before discussing it. As this article is about the controversy, rather than about gamergate - due to the off-cited difficulties of writing about a decentralized, leaderless group that insists on being defined by what it says rather than what it does - we do not need to open the article with what the movement that started the controversy claims to be about. We need to open with what the controversy is about. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

But if Gamergate as you claim is a "decentralized leaderless group", one that has no actual membership regisrtation... Why can any claim about misogyny even be possible to prove? Thing is though; gGAmergate is NOT a group -- Gamergate is a movement. See the difference? The movement is defined by those part of the movement, it is defined by the criteria and goals that people part of it has defined is. I.E iy is about Journalistic ethics. If people do other things, then those things re not part of GG, even if it was possible to tie that person to GG. And that is why all these wild claims of misogyny are so utterly stupid. Women and transexuals claim they have been harassed (and they might have), but to later jump to conclusions and say that they have been harassed by GG is strange wouldn't you say? Where have tyhey ever presented any proof that GG is responsible? For sure established media reports that it is GG, but where are they ever presenting any real evidence?--Thronedrei (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Referring to Ryulong, I think we need to stop with "ostensibly". It is not neutral enough and essentially an opinion by the press. From the source "some argue is about ethics in journalism, but others consider to be a largely misogynist hate campaign" is neutral enough IMO. I hope you get the difference between "it is about ethics" and "some argue that it is about ethics". starship.paint ~ regal 00:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but no. It can't possible be neutral if the "reliable sources" this article is based on, themselves aren't neutral since they are themselves the object of the controversy.--Thronedrei (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that the New York Times, BBC, CNN, The Guardian, etc., are all part of a global media conspiracy to kill the concept of what is a gamer?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that established media protects its own to one degree or another. You don't throw rocks in a glass house ect. Media has a vested interest in protecting itself right?--Thronedrei (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the article currently says that Gamergate supporters argue that it's about ethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm referring to a restructuring of the first paragraph. starship.paint ~ regal 01:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I know, and I have argued for this as well in the past. Since established media is actually at least half of the controversy, then their articles can't be treated as anything other than just opinion pieces. At least not in the cases where they provide no actual evidence -- and I has as of yet never seen these blog... I mean journalist articles provide any real proof of their claims.--Thronedrei (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy in video game culture which started in August 2014. Supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement state that they are opposing corruption in video game journalism. Detractors state that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture. Various media outlets have described the movement as a front for misogyny and harassment.

Once again, no. The public controversy is entirely about harassment and misogyny. This is because the movement has failed to raise any legitimate issues of unethical behavior in gaming journalism, so there's nothing anyone can really discuss. ("SJWs are ruining game reviews, stop talking about sexism and only write about frame rates and numbers of polygons" are not ethical issues.) Nobody's buying the "journalism ethics" line except for GG supporters, sorry. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't change a single thing about journalism ethics in that paragraph. Likewise, there is no denial that this controversy is about harassment or misogyny. I don't know what you're objecting to. starship.paint ~ regal 01:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Except this is ignoring that the journalistic side has responded to these claims by changing policies (disclaimers, etc.) in response to the GG's claims of conflicts of interest, and that they have identified there are other ethics issues that they want to talk about, beyond those claimed from the GG. So it factually wrong to say there's no ethics involved in a WP voice. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point, thank you. starship.paint ~ regal 01:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that "ostensibly" or "apparently" or some expression of doubt is used in conjunction with the various statements regarding the ethics angle. Several websites did address crowdfunding in their guidelines but that's all that's happened. Everything that followed has been a hate boner for the articles like the one Leigh Alexander made on Gamasutra and the seesawing of advertisers when they bother to react to the deluge of form emails they're receiving from the people that read KIA or /gg/ or whatever other place they congregate now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Masem, those changes happened two months ago, before this became a significant public controversy. The movement has not been able to promulgate any further meaningful claims and rather than declare victory and move on, it has devolved into the widespread harassment, death threats and other violent outbursts directed at Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu that have been widely publicized.

Take the BBC article cited approvingly here. Beyond noting that GamerGate supporters claim they're about journalism ethics and stating that the allegations against Quinn have been proven false, it doesn't mention anything about "ethics in gaming journalism" and focuses entirely on the harassment issues. That is because, at this point, the movement has not made any meaningful claims about ethics in gaming journalism. To have a debate about something, you have to make meaningful assertions and the movement has been unable to do so. (Again, "SJWs are ruining everything about games journalism, fire them all" is profoundly unserious.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Ms Quinn herself suggested that the gaming ethics argument could progress - but only if it distanced itself fully from GamerGate tag. "If you have any care for this industry, if you have any care for the future of games, you need to leave. "If you have actual concerns, start over without [GamerGate]. If your concerns can't exist on their own, if they have to be supported off the backs of ruining lives, then how legitimate are your concerns?" So even the person targetted agreed there's ethics issues in the BBC article. So it is justified. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

She said if. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Not about the existing of ethics issues. The "if" argument is applies to being discussed in the future. --MASEM (t) 02:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Quinn has repeatedly said that there could be reasonable, good-faith conversations about ethics in gaming journalism. That is not the same as agreeing that GamerGate has anything to do with substantive ethics issues. In fact, she has repeatedly said that GamerGate was launched as a slut-shaming harassment campaign against her. You fundamentally misrepresent her position. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that is bullshit logic; her position is clear that there are ethics issues to discuss (she has spoken on this point earlier too); she just wants people that are using the GG tag but want ethics changes to get away from that tag and start anew. She's not accusing everyone under GG as being part of the harassment against here. She's taking a far more neutral stance than this article is. It clearly shows that some part of the press see that there are ethics to be discussed. We cannot refuse to use what is being said about the ethics side, even if in the same breath the press say they doubt that is really what is happening. That's combining the fact that GG has said it is about ethics, and the opinion that it is not. We are required in being neutral (not balanced) to report it that way. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You are intentionally misrepresenting the person who was viciously attacked to launch this sordid affair and that is the bullshit logic here. That's right, there are ethics issues to discuss. GamerGate is not discussing those ethics issues, it is harassing and threatening women in video games. Nobody in the movement is articulating what actual, substantive, meaningful, non-total-bullshit ethics issues GamerGate believes exist in games journalism. That is not the media's fault, that is the movement's inability or unwillingness to figure out what it stands for beyond demanding that people stop talking about sexism in video games, which, in case you hadn't noticed, has not the slightest fucking thing to do with journalism ethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

WP does not edit with any sympathy to victims, so making it a personaable issues about the attacks against Quinn is not helping. Remember the fact is "GG has claimed it about ethics." That a verified fact. It is an opinion they are not talking about those ethics, and further an opinion that because they aren't talking about ethics, it is really a front for harassment. All that should be in the article, but you cannot dismiss the fact that GG claims it is about ethics without creating a non-neutral article. All the other stuff that are opinions about the movement have to be in this and will outweigh any reasonable claims the proGG has made, but it is completely disingenious to outright ignore their stated claims even if the press thinks they are lying. (It would be the same if a suspect claims not guilty but everyone in the press and their brother think otherwise - WP would still report neutrally on the issue). --MASEM (t) 03:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, yes, we do edit with sympathy to victims. You apparently are unfamiliar with the biographies of living persons policy. Let me refresh your memory. Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. ... Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a great difference between respecting privacy and the like, and what is being done here by sensationalizing the issue by aggressively repeating the words "harassment" and "misogyny" to drive home that "GG is evil". We clearly give the harassment victims their due say, but we cannot edit with any added sympathy for them, otherwise that makes us a soapbox, per WP:NOT. The article right now does do exactly what AVOIDVICTIM says not to do. --MASEM (t) 03:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I would think that continually stressing too much on misogyny is sensationalist. starship.paint ~ regal 03:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If that's how the multitude of sources stress it, then what's the issue?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. She said if there are people in gamergate who care about ethics they need to distance themselves. That is not the same thing as saying that gamergate is actually about ethics, even a little bit. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

How the hell are you reading it like that? She is addressing the people in the gamergate side and telling they can only be productive if they move away from GG. You cannot twist the sources to your desired narrative. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's take this real slow. "If you have actual concerns, abandon GamerGate because GamerGate isn't about ethics in journalism. If you aren't willing to do that, then your concerns aren't legitimate." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That reads: "I know you have concerns, I want to talk about them, but as long as you edit under GG, no one will take those concerns seriously." Not that they do not have concerns. Huge difference in that interpretation. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It reads "if you have actual concerns, talk about them somewhere else." I know that because she actually said the words "If you have actual concerns." -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I think we can resolve this by quoting what Zoe Quinn says. The simple fact of the matter is that GamerGate is *not* about games journalism, and even if it was, their targets are disproportionately powerless in the industry, disproportionately female or feminist, and disproportionately *not games journalists*. I don't think we need to further debate what Zoe Quinn believes GamerGate is about. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope, that counters the sources that says there are concerns even by Quinn (even if she said something else before).--MASEM (t) 03:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't negate that there are concerns on the GG side, though tells the GG side to make sure that these are legit concerns. I'm totally on board the fact the press does not believe any concerns are actionable or legit atop the fact it is tied with GG, but there are proGG concerns that can be documented, no matter how flimsy or silly they might come as they are in the press. Because of that, we won't give them a heck of a lot of space, but they cannot omitted from the narrative. --MASEM (t) 03:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec) reply to North: Well, Quinn's entitled to her opinion. But she obviously acknowledges that some people believe that it is about games journalism, even if she herself doesn't. Otherwise, she wouldn't say and even if it was ... reply to Tara: Now, she also acknowledges that some people have actual concerns. If you have actual concerns. -> "you" - she's talking to somebody with actual concerns, or is she talking to nobody at all? starship.paint ~ regal 03:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Now, she also acknowledges that some people have actual concerns. If you have actual concerns. -> "you" - she's talking to somebody with actual concerns, or is she talking to nobody at all? What very black and white thinking. The answer is 'neither.' She's addressing any hypothetical person who might possibly have any ethical concerns: that does not imply that she thinks the movement has genuine, legitimate ethical concerns. If I say "if anyone has any apples left over, put them in the pantry" am I asserting that there are apples left over? Or only that I acknowledge it's possible somebody might have some? She is not saying that there are any people who care about ethics in gamergate, only that anyone who does is wasting their time and should change their tactics. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That's correct, some GG supporters believe their movement is about games journalism. The broader public controversy has centered on the misogynistic harassment and death threats committed by some GG supporters. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

(From the GG irc (paraphrased, naturally)) "We cannot take a new name, that will divide us and make us easier to silence" The logic behind staying "GamerGate" is to avoid divide and conquer tactics from the opposition. Its being treated as a war of sorts by pro-gg. Also this (again, edited to be "family friendly"), "...if we can't separate ourselves from the third party false flaggers, because of some random fallacy, how can we defend ourselves from the MSM slandering us?" --DSA510 Pls No Hate 03:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

that's nice, but also irrelevant until IRC becomes a reliable, non-primary source. Ironholds (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, yeah, DSA510. The movement needs to divide because until and unless the harassment and death threats go away, the movement will continue to have effectively zero mainstream credibility. If the crazy trolling/MRA/"stop SJWs" group isn't abandoned, GamerGate will continue not to have any sort of seat at the adult discussion table. It's not "divide and conquer," it's "divide or continue to be a punchline."

Such are the travails of a "movement" with no leadership, no organization and no ability to control its message. Hiding behind complete anonymity on IRC and chanboards might be great for making lulz, but it's not so great for effecting meaningful change. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Many people on the pro-gg side see the harassment as serious, but are questioning the source. It isn't all lulz you know. I could for example, assume that all wikipedians are "no fun allowed" boring and bland people, but wikipedians (for now) are people, and people are diverse and different. Using the lowest denominator to judge a group is not very fair. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 03:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

AND, even if we did split, whats to stop false flaggers from hopping on? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 03:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That's why you'd need to create an actual non-profit organization with defined leadership, an elected board of directors, etc. "Gamers' Coalition for Better Journalism" or something, I dunno. Establish a defined set of goals, perhaps propose a Model Code of Ethics for Gaming Journalism like the SPJ code, etc. Basically, what this developer suggests. Then the organization can formally endorse specific arguments, reject the bullshit ones, disavow harassment, kick people out who are doing stupid stuff, speak with a single unified voice, etc. That's what actual movements for change have done throughout history — see NAACP and Sierra Club for examples.

The issue, DSA510, is that right now you cannot meaningfully say "GamerGate is not about harassment." As umpteen squillion people have pointed out, that is literally the no true Scotsman fallacy. There is no ability to distinguish what one person says "GamerGate" is from what another person says it isn't.

Wikipedia is a great example. It's operated by the WIkimedia Foundation, a non-profit group with an elected board of directors, that works to manage and oversee what goes on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:5

North. You have a very crucial misunderstanding of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I think somebody explained this to you one before: the fallacy you're referring to is when somebody says, "No true Scotsman would harass a lady, so therefore anyone who did such a thing is not a Scotsman!"

What you're saying is that all Scotsmen are evil misogynists who want to harass women. One version is a logical fallacy. The other is just a stupid stereotype of a group you dislike. YellowSandals (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)0, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I've said this before, and maybe some others, people are accusing others of this fallacy without understanding what it is, honestly you shouldn't trust anyone whose argument consists of merely naming a fallacy and accusing you of it, without explaining why it's fallacious. Sadly a lot of people online have an understanding of logic that begins and ends with naming fallacies and never learn more from there. People seem to be using thus fallacy here because they can't be bothered to do the work of using evidence to show what GG is about. The fallacy isn't merely saying "that's not what we're about" or "they don't represent up", it refers to the use of questionable definitions and tautology to reach a misleading conclusion. Halfhat (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's actually exactly what the Scotsman fallacy is. I don't see anybody saying 'all gamergaters are misogynists.' But some people are saying "That harassment didn't come from gamergate! Gamergate is against harassment!" That's the fallacy: some people are attempting to improve gamergate's PR not by doing something about it's problems, but by defining 'gamergate' as 'people who care about ethics in journalism' and insisting that this proves that anyone who's harassing women for having opinions they don't like is by definition not part of gamergate. That's not logic that's going to pass muster anywhere outside of the gamergate echo chambers. They don't get to say who does and does not represent them: everything that is going on within their movement is going to be pinned on the movement itself, and when by far the most visible, most notable, most talked about aspect of the movement is the harrassment of women, saying 'they don't represent us!' is not going to make people ignore the harrassment and accept gamergate's claims that it's really just about ethics in journalism. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Since you are all have such a blast debating the nuances of the BBC article, you might be interested in The Independent's short piece on said BBC article. Most of it is just regurgitation of some Quinn's remarks to the BBC, though; such interpretation as exists simply reflects the now dominant narrative. Link CIreland (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Some have tenuously argued that the debate surrounds journalistic standards, while others have said it stems from misogyny in gaming and men feeling threatened by powerful women working in the industry. An apt summary because of hedging. Note that it has nothing to do with preserving journalistic integrity and has everything to do with her angry ex-boyfriend is Quinn's opinion, instead of fact. starship.paint ~ regal 03:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Since this is becoming about the ideologies and such behind GamerGate itself, rather than about the article, and I don't want some esoteric WP rule being pulled, I propose some other place to do as such (as much as I'd like to discuss it here). Perhaps someone's talkpage? IRC? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 03:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Happy to continue this on my talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair, however I'll do it some later time. But I do appreciate the offer. Expect me later though. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 04:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering it's part of about every even vaguely balanced article, and many biased ones, and that GamerGate makes no sense unless you understand about the ethics angle, calling it fringe, and saying it shouldn't be included is just lies. Here's some articles that mention that viewpoint in the intro.

http://venturebeat.com/2014/10/31/the-deanbeat-like-it-or-hate-it-gamergate-isnt-losing-steam/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/zoe-quinn-on-gamergate-its-not-about-ethical-journalism-its-glorified-revenge-porn-by-my-angry-ex-9829176.html

http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2014/10/ultimate-weapon-against-gamergate-time-wasters-1960s-chat-bot-wastes-their-time

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29821050

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/28/gamergates_fickle_hero_the_dark_opportunism_of_breitbarts_milo_yiannopoulos/

Halfhat (talk) 09:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe you are misintepreting what has been said. NorthBySouthBaranof is arguing that the concept that "it's actually about ethics in video game journalism" is fringe. While people representing themselves as part of GamerGate say they are all about ethics, there is very little evidence of anything they have done regarding ethics since all of these game websites went "Oh, okay, we'll acknowledge Patreon, Indiegogo, Kickstarter, etc., in our rules for our writers". They do not care about the Kane & Lynch fiasco (Gerstmann has effectively disowned the movement in some statement he made that was linked here at one point), nor do they care about whatshisface and those bottles of Mountain Dew and bags of Doritos, nor do they care about any AAA publishers doing anything. While we can discuss ethics in video game journalism as part of the background of GamerGate, it cannot really be given that much coverage in the whole of the text because there's nothing else out there that talks about it. How many times can we possibly be expected to write "ethics in video game journalism" throughout the article when there's no evidence of anyone in GamerGate doing anything about it since late August/early September? There was no (as far as reliable sources are aware) outrage at the Shadow of Mordor debacle. There was no (as far as reliable sources are aware) effort made to boycott Monolith or Warner Bros. Instead, all GamerGate has feasibly done is harassed several non-video game companies into pulling their advertising (temporarily) from websites they presently hate. Intel and Gamasutra or Adobe, Mercedes Benz, and whoever else it was from Gawker Media because of Leigh Alexander's op/ed and Sam Biddle being himself on Twitter and then Gawker's own reaction to it. This isn't "ethics in journalism". Ethical journalists shouldn't give a shit about their advertisers. That's the whole reason Gerstmann was fired, because there was a lapse in ethics regarding the advertiser and Eurogamer. So I hope this clarifies things. Ethics in journalism is a fringe issue because there's been no accomplishments in it, despite it being GamerGate's expressly stated goal which nearly all media outlets see as a thinly veiled front for their continued hatred of everyone that they see as opposed to them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, these sources do not back up "the ethics angle" at all. The closest we get is the BBC quoting "one prominent figure who backed GamerGate, but wished to remain anonymous in this article" and Venturebeat effectively saying "GamerGate says it's about ethics, but the evidence says it's not, and if it was once about ethics it's not now". Woodroar (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

They don't back up the viewpoint, my point is they still mention it because it is key information to understand the controversy. Halfhat (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

and again "mention" "background". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

But it isn't background, it's a key part of the controversy. Halfhat (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

no, its not key to any third party observation. if it were "key" someone would have done "problems with ethics in journalism" story without a focus on harassment. they havent and they wont. "but ethics" is background to what third parties care about and therefore what we cover. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That does not follow. Halfhat (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, from Wikipedia policies, it does. WP:UNDUE. We follow the reliable sources. The Guardian: The recent uproar – said to be over ethics in journalism but focused mostly on targeting outspoken women who aren’t journalists at all – is just the last, desperate gasp of misogynists facing an unwelcoming future." , The Telegraph "#GamerGate: the misogynist movement blighting the video games industry" , The IB Times Any lingering doubt over whether the Gamergate movement is dedicated to anything other than misogyny and intimidation was eliminated early Thursday when Felicia Day’s personal information was dumped online., Time: Misogynist Online Abuse Is Everyone’s Problem — Men Included , Huff Po: They are facing, as activist Melissa McEwan put it, terrorist misogyny." , Vox Angry misogyny is now the primary face of #GamerGate, The LA Times: "It's time to silence 'gamergate,' end the misogyny in gaming culture" when the reliable sources are framing the topic as "Gamergate is misogynistic trollfest under figleaf of "but ethics" thats how we frame it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

But it's been covered just not agreed with in many articles as I have said, also it needs to be covered to make the article comprehensible, and even if that did go against policy that does not matter. You just seem to be attempting to divert. Halfhat (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont see anyone saying that we dont cover the "but ethics". we just cover it in the proper proportion and aspect that the reliable sources are covering it - the smokescreen "ostensible" - ap per WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring that people are finding the article incomprehensible. Halfhat (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Whoa - non-sequitur. While readers would find "Gamergate is about ethics in journalism" comprehensible, it does not follow any of the content policies. And it is certainly possible to write an article that is comprehensible where we cover the issues in the proportion they are covered by the sources, treating the "ostensibles" as "ostensibles".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a strawman. I'm not saying the article should endorse the GG opinion, but that without explaining what it is, early on, the article is incomprehensible. Currently the article is basically useless Halfhat (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

We do explain what 'the GG opinion' is. We do it in the second sentance. Explaining it any 'earlier on' than that would be a serious undue weight issue. Saying 'gamergate is a controversy about ethics in journalism' and then going on to explain the actual events of the controversy, which are almost entirely about harassing women into silence, is not going to make this article any less confusing. We can say that gamergaters claims to be concerned about ethics in journalism - which we do - but our evidence shows that this is nothing but a claim, so we can't portray it as anything more -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll- Remove the Wikileaks section from GamerGate activism

We really don't need a sections for one persons unclear, disinterested opinions on this. They really haven't been refered to much anyway Halfhat (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

!Vote

• No.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• As a stand alone section, no. but as a major figures opinions, the content is probably valuable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a small formating advise

I suggest you put the Christina Sommers image under the Social Criticism title. Currently the "Presence of misogyny and inclusiveness" section is way too short and screws up the formatting leaving a giant white space under it Loganmac (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Her photo is next to where she is discussed like everyone else.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I know, her opinion should be moved to the Social criticism section, personally I don't get what "presence of misogyny and inclusiveness" is supposed to be about, given that the title is already "Role of misogyny and antifeminism". And both Sommers and Berlatsky's opinions fall within what Social criticism is. Also devoting a whole section to two sources seems kinda weird Loganmac (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

GG Branding

From Fast Company (a strong RS for business matters). Supports inclusion of Vivian James image and more importantly the adapted GG logo that should be used in the header. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

And to add that that article does note there was a problem with the color scheme as fuller explained in [39] but that they've look past. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the looked past it. Most of the article is about the color scheme. — Strongjam (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is literally titled "The Secret Meaning Behind Gamergate's Branding", I don't think that's looking past it at all. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, when I meant "they", I meant the GGers unaware of the color scheme attachment. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The significance of the colour scheme is a myth. My observations are the GGers are aware of the existence of this myth. Jgm74 (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't really get this thing with the colors. If you know any color theory, purple and green are complementary colors and complementary colors are commonly used together. Picolo is a green character with a purple outfit because of color theory, not because of any lewd sexual reasons. The article could be used to establish that Vivian James is often used as a Gamergate mascot, but the assertion that purple and green are secretly representative of rape should probably be attributed as an opinion if it's to be mentioned at all. YellowSandals (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Read the article: it does a pretty good job of making the case that at least some of the people designing the character were in on the joke. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't make a strong case of anything. There's of .gif of Picolo having anal sex with Vegeta, which they mention is seven years old, and based on the fact that Picolo uses complementary colors, Vivian James is a secret rape joke because she also uses complementary colors. I joked earlier that we should try to link Gamergate to the death of Mister Rogers, but I was mocking how ridiculously biased all this nonsense has been. I wasn't seriously implying that we should seek any tenuous evidence to tie Gamergate to the pettiest and most insubstantial claims of evil. YellowSandals (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not an accurate description of what the article is saying. It describes the history of the meme and the use of the color scheme to reference it on 4chan. It then outlines the threads where the color scheme was proposed and points to instances of references to the meme being made in response to that color choice. The 'complementary colors' line is a red herring: purple and green are not the only colors that complement each other, and this was not a random choice made in a vacuum. It's not as simple as 'purple+green=rape.' This color choice was made on a forum with a history of using that color scheme to reference that joke, and by people making direct text references to said joke. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

This is conspiracy theory level stuff, Tara. Once McIntosh started telling everyone that "purple and green refer to an old rape joke" then yes, people started seeing it that way. However, that doesn't mean that having good color coordination is a red herring to distract from an evil, subconscious message. I used to have a friend who wore a purple T-shirt with a green sweathshirt. YellowSandals (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

From the article: "Yet, in the initial forum discussion that led to the Vivian James design, a draft of the Vivian character with her distinctive color palette got plenty of “thanks, doc” replies, as did an anonymous illustrator who a few days later posted a first draft of the now standard GamerGate logo, showing a stylized video game controller with purple and green G’s." Kaciemonster (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So you like that the reliable source can be used to discuss Vivian James, except for the part where basically the whole thing is pointing out that the colors reference a rape meme. Quite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I have heard that green was chosen because of the green clover of 4chan and purple because of color theory. Racuce (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to a color palette (even the orange can be explained by this): http://paletton.com/#uid=30H0X0kYp++++XE+++BVy++SO+Z Racuce (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, based on how the sources write this, it should be described that the green/purple is a color scheme commonly adopted by 4chan (an origin of GG), that scheme itself in part based on the Picolo meme, but that's lore of 4chan that not every 4chan user knows (due to its high revolving door aspect). As such, the creators of Vivian (and subsequent the GG controller logo) used the 4chan color scheme, and that sources have noted they may have been unaware of the color scheme's origins and unintentionally introduced the Picolo meme colors into the GG logo. (They might have been fully aware too, but at least these articles give the benefit of doubt it was an possible mixup) --MASEM (t) 17:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Luckily the internet keeps records of its own insanity. Apparently it is an old meme, but thanks to spreading the idea that Vivian James is based on it, it's gone from relatively unknown to trending. Galleries show the "thanks, doc" thing has been applied to a lot of characters sharing these colors, including but not limited to Barney the dinosaur. YellowSandals (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That 'mitigating' information does not appear in the source from what I can see. We don't have to prove that every 4channer would know the meaning of the color scheme for it to be relevant, as it's clear from the article that many who contributed to the character's creation did. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

4chan is an anonymous image board. How would you prove the individual intent of anyone there? YellowSandals (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Anonymity doesn't enter into it: the evidence that the article presents shows that multiple references to the rape joke were made during the discussion of the character's design. This is a reliable source for the subject of this type of design, and the conclusions it presents are sound. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You can't pick and choose like that, Masem. Almost this entire story is describing how the logo references a rape joke and how that damages the movement's public credibility when it claims to not be about misogyny. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I never said we can't talk about how sources see it as reference to the Picolo meme; that's clearly there (with the source required to otherwise avoid the original research of your claim). But per the FC article, the GG people including TFYC group pushes the fact that this was not intentional - the FC and BB authors see this differently as that is their opinions that we can include. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's probably fine to include a reference to TFYC's response to the FC claim here. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Questionably color scheme aside; how would this work with WP:NONFREE? — Strongjam (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Under non-free, besides this source, there's other sources that describe the connection of the Vivian character to be representative of the GG movement; add that the coloring scheme presents some interesting issues, and the NFCC#8 (contextual significance) barrier is clearly passed. If the only thing we could say about Vivian was "she is GG's mascot", that woudl be insufficient, but there's plenty of discussion now of the character itself to qualify for an image here. --MASEM (t) 17:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So did you actually find a source that proclaims that Vivian James' color scheme is that of the daily dose?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I don't think that there's any particular need to have any non-free images representing the movemetn on the page about a controversy, Masem.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The comment from the RS Fast Company pointing out the scheme bears a close resemblance to the meme is right there. Also, this is a page about the controversy and the movement - it makes no sense to treat the topics separately as they are far too intertwined here. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to have non-free images of the movement's iconography on this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I am curious about why it is claimed to be a rape joke. The author seems to be relying on the description given by KnowYourMeme, but there is no clear reference to rape anywhere it is mentioned except KYM and people citing KYM as a source. When it is brought up on 4chan or other meme sites there is no mention of rape that I can tell, just sex. We can't really know what the motivations were of the person who posted the version with purple and green, let alone if anyone there really saw it as a rape joke in the first place. This seems to be more of an opinion, rather than a factual statement and should be considered as such.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just describe it as "an animated gif of the Dragon Ball Z character Piccolo sodomizing the character Vegeta". Or we go with what the sources say which is their definition of it being a rape joke instead of hemming and hawwing over the specifics as usual.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

We have one source that really talks about it and another that basically just quotes it. I think the most we could justify is like a sentence, maybe two, stating that some believe it is a reference to a rape joke. The author of the piece makes a circumstantial case for it being a reference to daily dose, but one that is still subject to interpretation and only establishes it as a rape joke by linking to KYM, which is not a reliable source. We cannot treat this as fact given the level of uncertainty surrounding it. For what it is worth, TFYC responded to this allegation a while back.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It to me looks like a quick turnaround from praising KYM for having "balanced" coverage of GamerGate when now something salacious is being linked to it. He makes enough of a case that the author can be quoted, but I don't think that there's much of an argument to include the non-free images of barely known provenance on this page when we can just describe the colors.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate (pun intended), perhaps the "thanks doc" comments occurred to the posters by coincedence? The internet has a strange memory. I myself, when I looked at the daily dose swf first, didn't think of anything, I just saw... well you know. It was only after it was highlighted that, piccolo has purple and green colors, and vivian's hoodie has purple and green colors, that it kinda made a weak connection, emphasis on weak. Its that thing where you don't notice stuff until its pointed out to you. Now, concerning this to the article, the connection is too weak to actually be included. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 04:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)(For all its worth, her hoodie could have been another set of colors and someone would have whined)

"Playing Devil's Advocate" actually has absolutely no place in WP: we work by doing research using reliable sources, not by concocting theories about scenarios where those sources could be wrong. -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The source for the "rape" thing is basically trying to disguise theory as fact. Its one theory against another. Also The Incredible Hulk is now rape I guess. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 06:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No and no. Contrary to what the bad examples on this page may have taught you, you can't actually dismiss a source you don't like by saying 'it's all just opinion.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Source needed to support false accusations

Seems some things have improved here since I last checked. A more neutral 'concerning misogyny' without any of that longstanding/ingrained nonsense. The first paragraph seems so wonderfully neutral I felt comfortable moving on to read the 2nd.

The controversy began when indie game developer Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleged that Quinn had a romantic relationship with a journalist for the video game news site Kotaku. This led to harassment of Quinn, including false accusations that the relationship had led to positive coverage of Quinn's game.

I think unless we can properly source this claim that we ought to remove the 'false' and simply say:

including accusations

Is there any actual evidence that the accusations are false?

We should certainly present any criticism of the accusations (counter-arguments) as well as the evidence people claim support the accusation, and let people come to their own conclusions by weighing it. I don't think Wikipedia should declare 'false' unless it's INCREDIBLY overwhelming.

It would be one thing to say that the proposed evidence of the accusation is not conclusive or convincing to whatever Wikipedia's standards are, but there is a difference between an unproven or unsupported accusation and a false one.

Calling an accusation false is like saying there is absolute proof that it must be false. If this is the case, I would like it if when the article becomes opening to editing (or if a moderator could do it now) if a reference could be linked next to the word 'false' which explains the evidence that exists proving that Quinn could not have possibly had a romantic relationship with a Kotaku journalist.

I haven't seen any proof for or against this claim, but I think if we are going to call it false there must be overwhelming evidence existing to disprove it. Otherwise I think we should just neutrally convey the claim and call it 'unproven' until presented with evidence of it being true, but should not call it false unless very strong evidence exists falsifying it.

Falsifying something like this sounds incredibly hard since it's possible to have secret relationships, so I'm wondering how this could possibly be done. Ranze (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE. Try reading the talkpage: this is a settled issue. Pushing to treat the accusations against Quinn as anything other than false appears to be just about the only way to get topic banned from this article. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

As TaraInDC said. This is a settled issue. Also, the false accusation is the positive news coverage by Grayson, which is non-existent. Hence 'false'. — Strongjam (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources? Off the top of my head: The LA Times, Time Magazine, Washington Post, The New Yorker. And that's using only first-rate sources. I'm sure you could find many more if you go through the references currently in the article. CIreland (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

To be exact, the allegations about getting positive coverage is not fully proven wrong. Getting a review, yes, and absolutely is the only one that we know didn't happen (there's no review), but there is the issue of, for example, Grayson's piece about GAME JAM that has been argued by the proGG that it remains a valid issue and wasn't proven 100% false - though it is clear the press does not think this particular article was "positive press" in the same manner a review would be. That said, "refuted" is a much more accurate word than "false" here. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

False is fine. This specific instance of 'false' is used to refer to a positive review that does not exist. The other press mentions were confirmed to be before the relationship began, so false is fine there as well. — Strongjam (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If the sentence was saying "for a review" instead of "for positive coverage" , "false" is absolutely right - no one has been able to demonstrate one exists. But it is technically wrong to say that "positive coverage" claim is false because there does exist known examples of Grayson's writing about DQ, though well before it was established their romantic relationship stated. I'm fully on board that the press is going "that's being really petty on the details" and generally considering any of those allegations no longer worth discussing, but the technically right term here is "refuted" - Kotaku, Quinn, Grayson, and even Gjoni have all said there was nothing like this they were aware of and the press has readily accepted that claim. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Many sources that comment on the matter simply say that the allegation of a favorable review was false and do not address the other allegation(s). Where the allegations in the plural are remarked upon, it is dismissively (The New York Times, for example, has Some of the crusaders against Ms. Quinn justified their actions by constructing flimsy conspiracies) or outright call them false. Here are some example links for you:

• Despite the fact the journalist in question did not ‘review’ the game and wasn’t found to have allocated it any particular special treatment
• the accusations against Quinn were proven untrue
• Despite the allegations being proved false
• That post was written by Elon Gjoni, the ex-boyfriend of game developer Quinn, and seemed to insinuate that she'd slept with journalists in exchange for positive coverage. A later update from Gjoni clarified that was not the case.

CIreland (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

JournoList

Would an admin kindly remove the claim "who based the group off JournoList"? It's not found in the source—the Ars Technica article neither states nor implies what (if anything) he based GameJournoPros on—plus from Talk page discussions it's clear the connection is meant to reflect poorly on Kyle Orland and others on the list by implying unethical, partisan behavior like that ascribed to JournoList. Woodroar (talk) 05:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Another request would be to unlink GameJournoPros.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems this was not stated in Orland's piece, but in one of the leaked e-mails.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Imgur is not a reliable source. (Of course, not saying you were saying it was, TDA.) We should let a reliable source backup that claim. Woodroar (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Top priority for removal of this article

This article can be cleaned/improved by the removal of all "Eric Kain" quotes, which are erroneously listed in the article as coming from Forbes, but actually come from a personal blog that Forbes does not oversee. These sorts of deceptive "contributor" (read, personal) blog entries have been ruled as a no-go as sources across the entire site. MediaMaven3 (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have proof of this?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure - if you click the external link, you will find in the body text of the blog post the description

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

The "Contributor" status is also very clearly explained in the Terms of Service for the site. "Contributor" blogs are

• personal blogs maintained by a Forbes user who is not hired to write for the company,
• not subject to Forbes editorial oversight or even examination,
• subject to oversight by Forbes staff only to resolve complaints or address violations of the ToS.

The best way to address this issue would almost certainly be by removal of the information until a notable or reliable secondary source could be found. If there's a case to be made that the article itself has become notable, it still isn't Forbes, and at the very least it must be made clear that this is a personal blog for the individual quoted. MediaMaven3 (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering if there had ever been a consensus discussion about whether those blogs are reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, at WT:VG - we have identified these are not normally reviewed pieces for Forbes (I'm sure someone reads to make sure they aren't overall derogatory or the like, but not for fact-checking), so only a few of the people that have posted there have been deemed reliable based on their past performance/other jobs, like Paul Tassi and Kain (which is a metric allowed for SPS type sources). That said, I would consider these weak RS that should be removed unless they are expressing a key statement or opinion that cannot be expressed otherwise. If there is a large consensus about Forbes otherwise, I'm not aware of. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, Kain's opinions are minimal, AFAIK, and his first piece was simply used to support several statements on the facts of GamerGate rather than his own opinions on it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Could I get some clarification on this Ryulong? The way you word it sounds to me as if you are saying that Kain's statements (see unreliable source) were being used to support a narrative as if it was a fact. So, could you elaborate on this a bit? I would appreciate this very much. Thank you.--Thronedrei (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The way you're wording your response sounds like you're putting words in my mouth. Erik Kain's piece, before it was suddenly decried as a terrible OP/ED in this thread, was being used to cite various general statements on the events of GamerGate and not any "narrative".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not putting words into your mouth, I'm just trying to get to the bottom with what you are actually suggesting. AS for general statements, if Kain was the only "reliable source" for these statements, even if they did occur... if we don't have any reliable source to actually cite them, then these statements can't be included in the article per WB rules right?--Thronedrei (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Glad we're in agreement. As the article unfortunately contains a lot of pull quotes from this article and information erroneously claiming Forbes as the source, we will have to do some work to remove and improve. Do we have any other sources for this information beyond the sentence topic's personal blog? MediaMaven3 (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

On the Kain pieces on this page, this is cited 7 times, 3 of which are his opinions and the other 4 accompany other subsequent citations. This piece is supporting content on the Shadow of Mordor controversy and does not contain his opinions. This is also cited once, and is accompanying another source. This is a citation of his opinion. This is accompanying content on GameJournoPros.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The shadow of mordor bit is actually sort of wrong on the page right now. It reads as though Zaid Jilani is talking about the mordor game (which he is), but it's cited to Kain. The whole paragraph is cited to Jilani, so the Kain bit is mostly redundant. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It was at the time the only source I picked explaining the game controversy in the context of Jilani's statement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I would support removing most of the Kain references on this basis. Protonk (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree we should remove all opinion pieces from the article. Let's stick to the pure facts. That's the only way we'll get anywhere. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That can't happen, even at a more conservative level. The opinions of some (both sides) are central to the controversy (eg Alexander's piece setting off the groundwork of Operation Disrespectful Nod). --MASEM (t) 21:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

We also cannot remove all opinion pieces from here because they give real world context to the happenings, and also because it seems that POV pushers here cannot differentiate between opinion and media consensus, considering that multiple people are arguing that "misogyny" is an opinion by the media.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that's a very valid suggestion made at the Arbcom case page to remove non-narrative opinions for now until we are far outside of the reactionary period, so we are only treating this as a fact recap until we have more far-removed sources instead of at-the-moment responses. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There is never not going to be a reactionary period the way the GamerGate movement keeps targetting new things that go against them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no getting around the fact that a large number of media sources are opinionated, not just Kain. As far as I am concerned, there is no good reason for removing these pieces, but I do believe certain sections should be summarized.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Erik Kain is OK, in this instance. Forbes is magazine, it's also a content farm, Kain writes for the latter so his opinion does not get a instant greenlight. In March, I started a discussion at WP:VG/RS to explicitly list Forbes as a situational source. Generally, I discourage the use of Forbes contributor posts, but in this case, third party reliable sources have valued Kain's thoughts on the subject so I'd give it a pass.[40][41][42] - hahnchen 04:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

  Kain seems to have more or less stopped writing about Gamergate - for a while there he was cranking out multiple pieces per day. We have a history of over-reliance on him as a source, but I don't think that necessarily means he needs to be removed altogether. But is there a more accurate way to describe his relationship with Forbes? The phrasing does seem to imply he's a staff writer. --

  Sounds good, Hahnchen. How about we use this phrasing to address the above concern — "Erik Kain, a contributor at Forbes.com." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

  I made an edit in September to state that Kain was writing on the website and not in the magazine, so I'm fine with this. - hahnchen 14:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Legalities of online threats and the issues with law enforcement dealing with the harassment

[43] This is from Urban Institute so its a decent RS (not great, but for the fact they point out, they are fine) - pointing out that online rape and murder threats are federal crimes (but not general harassment), but that due to lack of reporting the federal gov't cannot do much about these. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

"So, why have there been no prosecutions? A big part of the answer, I suspect, is that no victims have reported the crimes they have experienced." Looks like uninformed speculation: we have sources for high profile victims reporting their harassment to the FBI. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Clearly Quinn, Sarkeesian, and Wu have, but they're talking about the others that have been harassed here, with the implication that others have not spoken up about what they've gotten. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

And that's nothing but speculation based on the author's opinion. Can you show evidence that the author is qualified to draw the conclusion that 'no' victims are reporting these crimes? Because this is actually a question that is independantly verifiable, and we have direct evidence that the author's 'suspicion' isn't the case. If we'd like to include speculation on what the lack of prosecutions means, Slate has a far better article on this, based on information from a former FBI cybercrime agent rather than the author's guesswork. What information would you like to see added to the article based on your source? -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Both of them, but using other statements from the Urban Institution one, to point out the basic fact that the FBI cannot act if there's no crime being reported, and some of the victims may not be reporting due to fear of the "wolf pack" mentality of GG. The Slate article I've pointed out before and that's great to describe that the FBI is usually out of its ability and resources to track down those doing the harassing. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, of course they can't act on crimes that aren't reported. But I don't think that this source is a good one to show that fact is particularly relevant or significant to this issue, as it seems to suggest that the lack of arrests is the victims' fault when there are other sources that demonstrate the difficulty of prosecuting these crimes which are far more likely to be the real reason for the lack of arrests. The conclusions this article draws are flawed, and we have sources that say so. It's very clearly an opinion article, and given that its information is flawed, I don't think it can be used as anything but the author's opinion. So we need to establish that the author's opinion on cybercrime is particularly notable for the opinions to be useful. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so harsh on it, Tara. I don't read it the same way; I think it's acknowledging the difficulty in reporting such crimes because of the fear of reprisal and because local law enforcement generally ignores them. I don't think we need to take him literally when he says "no victims have reported the crimes they've experienced" — it is likely that relatively few of the massive volume of such threats have been reported and it notes that underreporting of crimes is a common thing. For example, I received death threats on my personal talk page over this nonsense... I didn't bother reporting it anywhere, but perhaps I should have.

It's also another source which notes that no matter what individual GGers might say, the movement as a whole is viewed as a fount of violent threats and harassment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Even with my stance on the nature of this article, the qualification of targets being scared by a "wolf pack" mentality is an important pull quote that describes the unavoidable behavior of this. (There's other sources that have likened/claims GG is a hate mob, this fits in line with that in showing the impression GG has made to the press). --MASEM (t) 21:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Following on legal issues: Brianna Wu's reward for a convinction on those that sent her death threat, and her side legal fund to help anyone that might have been defamed from the harassment. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What I find amusing about that piece (aside from the boutny hunter part) is that the article calls what Wu did as "speaking out" but call people responding in kind "harassment".--Thronedrei (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a qualitative difference between mocking someone and threatening to rape and murder someone. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre and inflammatory analogies on the talk page

Yep, the Nazi comparisons stop. Dreadstar ☥ 23:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If we could avoid bizarre and inflammatory analogies on the talk page involving Hitler, Gamergaters as homosexuals with or without Aids and the KKK and instead focus on more down to earth things like Wikipedia policy and reliable sources that would probably help keep things running smoother. Thanks. Artw (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC) That's one of the points I was making in my post above. With the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate very clearly stating that an editor who "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process can result in "blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the scope of these sanctions, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." I'd advise sticking to the editorial content of the article and not veering off into WP:SOAP. Dreadstar ☥ 22:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I actually believe that making analogies in good faith with appropriate amount of discussion and reason to back them up is not disruptive--for example, the Hitler thing was making a point at the neutrality that has been a issue at this page for quite some time. Their point was that no matter the person or the subject, their article is still soundly neutral. But I can understand where it can get filthy with inappropriate analogies such as 'So X editor of page, do you consider us worse than Hitler because he can have a better article than us?' That's not appropriate for discussions, but the former one very well is in my view. Tutelary (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I would add comparing fellow users to neo-nazis to that list. Artw (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC) The ideological tone of this article is an issue with the editorial content of the article. Dreadstar, when a major factor of an article surrounds dogmatic opinions and moral relativity, how is it usually handled? If this were an article that included multiple, unattributed statements about the "factual" sinfulness of homosexuality, rather than about the "factual" misogyny of angry video game enthusiasts, how would this be resolved? I'm not sure an ideology really yields to any form of argument. I've done my best to cite Wiki policy and make my case in an objective way, but eventually I keep coming back to comparisons to neutral articles - which are, of course, rejected on the basis of a dogma at work here. So far, civility has been the losing side of this whole thing. By taking a conservative approach that relies on discussion and consensus, it allows the article to be aggressively edited by parties claiming universal absolutes. I don't honestly feel like everyone is fighting with their gloves on. YellowSandals (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC) And if it continues, this thing is going to ARBCOM. I'd really like the admins to step in a bit more aggressively and enforce that WP:GS/GG. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I'd also like to add, every time somebody new comes in to discuss the bias in the article, they get hounded off. My impression is that the hounding will continue until everyone who feels the article is biased is either banned or gives up and moves on to something else. The analogies I'm making are not bizarre. I have argued with Neo-Nazis and other more commonly known radicals - I've been in good and bad neighborhoods, some with some real social problems - I'm seeing very familiar rhetoric being applied across this talk page. There was a time when reminding people that the Nazis were human was seen as a valid and meaningful thing, because it meant any of us could turn to such evil in the wrong circumstances. There are very polar views at work here, and I don't think it's in poor taste to remind anyone that the road to hell is always paved with good intentions. This article is perpetuating rifts and conflicts regarding this debate - I don't think it's a positive thing at all, and I'm starting to feel strained about seeing so many flippant dismissals when I ask to consider the relative morals at work. YellowSandals (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Yeah, as others have pointed out, the fact that these other groups/people are being mentioned are not an instance of Godwin's Law to compare any person involved or any editor to these grourps which would clearly be a violation of the sanctions, but instead to point out how WP normally handles articles of people or groups that clearly could be said to have lost their case in the court of public opinion (overwhelming negative commentary towards the party) that WP does not take that same tone in the writing of these article. It is very relevant and should be seen as absolutely not a civility insult. --MASEM (t) 23:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC) No, Masem. YellowSandals literally compared what I said to what he thinks neo-Nazis say. "Why is your justification the same repetitive, droning nonsense I hear from Neo-Nazis explaining their misanthropic opinions?" That's not pointing out anything about what Wikipedia says about anything, that's just plain old comparing me to a neo-Nazi. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC) You say, "We're just making factual observations about Gamergate supporters" in reference to negative moral accusations. As the Neo-Nazis say, "We just make factual statements about the Jews, or about black people". You're just making negative stereotypes about a group of people, then billing it as fact and telling people how factual it is. Do you think the Neo-Nazis don't have their info-graphics or their opinion articles? This sort of rhetoric treads an incredibly fine line, and you don't seem to understand where that line is. The whole article is written without any awareness of that line. Zigging and zagging across it, then looking up innocently and saying, "What, I'm just making observations about a group". You think that isn't going to anger the group you're talking about? It's not fair, it's not appropriate, and it's not the way Wikipedia should handle a delicate subject! YellowSandals (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC) First law of holes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Listen to me. There are human beings involved in this debate. There have been attempts to air out the sexual fetishes of those people as well as other shots at slander. You tell me to stop digging a hole that's going to get me banned from Wikipedia. I'm telling you to stop digging a hole that's purposefully agitating a larger conflict. YellowSandals (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC) So I guess that's a "no". Admin, please administrate. Artw (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I guess it's a minority perspective, but I think we're all adult enough to survive someone making a bad analogy or two. If arguing poorly were reason enough for a ban, none of us would still be here today. If someone makes a dumb or unconvincing argument, just ignore it. Protonk (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC) It's pure disruption. FWIW the KKK article calls them violent against African Americans and a hate group, so the argument that we use kid gloves elsewhere doesn't even hold. Artw (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate and the politicization of absolutely everything

Gamergate in a nutshell here [44]. I posted a template of issues a few weeks ago. This is another neutral observation of issues that define Gamergate controversy. --DHeyward (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That article gives voice and balance to what is missing from WP's article. The WP article is skewed very much to one side. Ezra Klein's piece highlights the fractured nature and politics that drive the coverage and POV. Our article is not a NPOV representation. --DHeyward (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This article has been brought up before. I personally think it's among one of the more valuable examinations of Gamergate so far, and I agree with a lot of it. However, it doesn't address many specific details regarding the movement or controversy. It would be nice for a quote, but I think the consensus was that it doesn't expand a whole lot on any hard information. While I agree with the take it presents, it's also one of only a handful that describes Gamergate as a symptom of widening social biases. Most articles so far just focus on moral accusations. YellowSandals (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"18. And no one should dismiss the very real, very dangerous harassment that's happening under Gamergate's banner." is what I have been saying for a month now, yes. Tarc (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice that nobody has disagreed with you, Tarc. YellowSandals (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Um, every editor that has ever tried to water down the opening line of "is a controversy which started in August 2014, concerning misogyny and harassment in video game culture" has disagreed with me, actually. Tarc (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize "harassment" was synonymous with "misogyny". In which case, yes. I guess we have been arguing about that. What I meant, however, using normal English, is that not even Gamergate has been downplaying the impact the harassment has had on their movement. They acknowledge it and have been intentionally trying to distance themselves from it! A lot of articles discuss this and are doing their best to prevent Gamergate from establishing that distance. YellowSandals (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, the sources cited don't really buy into the "Gamergater-who-isn't-a-harasser" shtick, they are all painted with one broad brush despite the pleas to the contrary. Again, that isn't the Wikipedia's problem to address. Tarc (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The article by Klein just did. He didn't filter out the uncomfortable voices either. Just matter of factly stated the issue. It isn't all misogyny and harassment. He also didn't dismiss those aspects. --DHeyward (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, I know you and the others don't like it when I make a controversial statement about another group to explain how your logic is wrong, but it seems to hit home so I'll do it again.

"The thing is, the sources cited don't really buy into the "homosexual-who-doesn't-have-AIDS" shtick, they are all painted with one broad brush despite the pleas to the contrary. Again, that isn't the Wikipedia's problem to address."

Okay, so if this had been about a group I assume you have no qualms with, you can see how your broad generalization doesn't feel like justice. I remind there was a time when it was broadly thought that AIDS was a homosexual disease, though we know better now. You need to understand, you are playing the role of a moral guardian. Your arguments are the same as the moral guardians before you. What you're doing is not revolutionary. It's tired, and played out, and thousands of years old. Additionally, you're using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy incorrectly. This is not "No True Scotsman". You're making a negative stereotype about a group of people, and then you're attacking the stereotype. Nobody is saying, "No true Gamergate supporter commits harassment so therefore harassers are excluded from the movement" here. We are saying it's biased to depict a movement using its most negative possible stereotype while using Wikipedia's voice to do so. Repeatedly, I have merely asked that we attribute points of view. YellowSandals (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

These comparisons do not 'hit a nerve,' and the 'I'm annoying people, so that proves I must be right!' attitude is simply juvenile. How can you possibly think a comparison like this is a good idea? Aside from being pointlessly inflammatory, it's not even remotely accurate, because "all homosexuals have AIDS" is not a perspective that is presented in even a tiny minority of reliable sources. This is essentially the WP:RS version of 'if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you, too?' The problem here is that sources who are in the habit of reporting as fact things like 'all homosexuals have AIDS' very quickly gain a reputation for being unreliable (as Brietbart has, in fact, for its own habit of publishing completely fabricated stories to harm political opponents.) -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

All you're espousing is the use of negative stereotypes to denigrate groups you disagree with, following a bandwagon to behave as though that's acceptable. Yes, the majority of public opinion doesn't hold this view of AIDS any longer, but several decades ago that was the case. This kind of thing is why it's important to remain neutral and write in terms of perspectives, rather than in concrete formats of "this group is wrong because everyone agrees they're wrong". We have a situation where gaming journals are declaring that gamers are dead and this is referenced to a group that was blamed for the Columbine Shooting and other violent sprees. Their critics have been publicly lauded and given prime television time to explain what's wrong with gamers today. Anita Sarkeesian and other critics have been calling gamers misogynists for a while now, using the backlash against that to fuel politicization of the topic as this article discusses. But yet you want to depict this battle as one of good versus evil. You want to throw gasoline on a fire - that's all you're doing with your contributions here. We could write from a neutral perspective and not add to the vitriol, but Wikipedia has failed in that so far. YellowSandals (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

please stay focused on this article and on the sources talking about this subject and NOT on your presumptions of other editors motives (or wildly inappropriate analogies) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You have used every possible form of mental gymnastics to justify writing one group in this controversy as the bad guy. You are presently writing an un-readable article that has very little relevant information in it. The vendetta against Gamergate is basically killing this thing. They see themselves as the victims here, and you want to keep attacking them. I'm telling you to knock it off. Do it on your blog if you have to. But for Wikipedia, stick to the facts. This is not the place to denigrate groups you dislike or to report negative stereotypes as being factually honest. YellowSandals (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not a "negative stereotype" - it's an observation of what the group has mostly done. Repeating "it's about ethics in gaming journalism" like it's a magic talisman does not provide a shield for harassment, and the fact that the movement has not raised any meaningful issues of "ethics in gaming journalism" in months is something that reliable outside observers have taken judicial notice of. It is not "stereotyping" to define a group by what it does rather than by what it says. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hat off-topic WP:FORUM. Dreadstar ☥ 23:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You know, have you ever argued with Neo-Nazis? I get around the internet. I have. They're frustrating. You know what they say about their stubborn, bigoted views? They say they're just making factual observations about other people. Like they've got the world figured out. Selfish ideologues are all the same, and the rhetoric is identical across the entire political spectrum. Nobody bills themselves as the bad guys. Not the KKK, not the Nazis - nobody. So when you attack a group of people through a medium that's supposed to be neutral, why is your justification the same repetitive, droning nonsense I hear from Neo-Nazis explaining their misanthropic opinions? Being able to dislike a group for reasons you can justify in your head does not make you superior to any ideologue or inquisitor before you. Any fool who convinces himself he's above such mistakes will quickly fall to those mistakes. This article is too ideological, and it's written on the attack against a specific social group. This is not appropriate. YellowSandals (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I decline to further discuss this issue with someone who compares me to a neo-Nazi. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I compared you to a human. YellowSandals (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC) No one has disagreed that it's an element of GamerGate. Your argument that it's the only thing or that it's primarily about any single thing is addressed quite nicely in that article as the view of social justice warriors. There are equally narrow views that GG is only about journalism ethics. There are many elements and facets of gamergate. Balance and NPOV require a more overall view of issues brought up by GG, including harassment, game journal ethics, game developer ethics, role of politics in gaming, etc, etc. --DHeyward (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Where are the sources that focus on the "but ethics" aspect of gamergate? Cause there are dozens and dozens that focus on the harassment and per WP:UNDUE it will take at least several that focus on something other than the harassment to merit coverage that does not almost entirely focus on the harassment.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

By neatly discounting conservative sources, there are only liberal sources left. This article gives credence to the use of Breitbart as a source as the argument is political. --DHeyward (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There is really only one conservative source that has been discounted here and that's Breitbart (website) due to their history.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

And that is not due to their history of being conservative, it is due to their history of not being reliable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Not according to Ezra Klein and this piece. It finds Breitbart reliable enough to cite and gives voice to pro-GG POV instead of only anti-GG POV. Klein is hardly a conservative and is very reliable. He took Breitbart on its face as a reliable source for GamerGate. His judgement is what should add Breitbart as a reliable source for this article. --DHeyward (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:RSN. Best of luck. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

RSN is not the place for case-by-case assessments for inclusion. Klein is reliable. He cites specific Breitbart published articles, not Breitbart. Per the guideline, case-by-case reliability applies and use by Klein and Vox is a compelling argument for inclusion. --DHeyward (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:RSN is the perfect place to get an independent assessment of a questionable source, case-by-case or no. There's an existing consensus, and not just on this page, that Brietbart is not a reliable source. No amount of discussion at the article talkpage level can override that: you need to make a case at WP:RSN. If your argument that another source mentioning Breitbart articles is enough to justify including them in this article is sound, you should have no problem convincing editors there. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec) You must have missed this on your way to 18: "14. It's worth stopping for a moment to say that Gamergate, as well as the reaction against it, isn't any one thing. It includes horrifying, probably criminal, harassment against pretty much any women who dare oppose it. It's partly an argument about what kinds of games the gaming press should cover — and, by extension, what kinds of games developers should make. It has members who want clearer disclosure policies in gaming journalism. It has a lot of people who joined because they hate feminism and internet "social justice" warriors. And it has many people, on both sides, who are far surer about who they're fighting than what they're fighting about." --DHeyward (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of putting something up from this. But more importantly I think we need to strip a lot out of the current article. Also I thought I posted this, did I forget or something? HalfHat 21:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@OpGamerGate

There doesn't seem to be a section on the little bit with @OpGamerGate, where "Anonymous" wanted to take down GamerGate, and after another "Anonymous" started looking into it, they vanished from the face of the earth? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 04:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No reports on it. The OpGamerGate twitter account was managed by people not really considered "Anonymous", in that they're pretty hated by most of them Loganmac (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've heard that AnonOps was furious about this. There is the eternal question of who is considered "Anonymous", though. Also this video, again, made by "Anonymous": YouTube -Anonymous Message to #GamerGate (There's another one which was bait, took the anti-gg side and then turned out to be a joke, just search "gamergate anon" on youtube)--DSA510 Pls No Hate 05:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

But on the point of this and the article, I don't think its notable yet, since it was shut down so fast. However again, this does not rule out third party trolling/harassment. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 05:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Do we have any reliable sources on it, other than the oblique references to trolls from The Washington Post's interviews? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It happened but it hasn't been reported in the media - no reliable source. Jgm74 (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

HEADLINE: Today nothing happened. I am confused at why someone would think we should/would cover something that didn't happen? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If there was messages then something did happen. Messages were sent right? How can we cover "threats" sent on twitter if we don't cover threats posted on youtube? Or do we only cover treats if the one being threatened cries on media?--Thronedrei (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No one bothered covering "the messages" either. Wikipedia does not run on internet gossip. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If the BBC ran an article saying the sky was red, would it be acceptable under WP:RS? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 05:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Meet Gamergate's first political candidate

Of marginal importance, but might deserve a sentence somewhere: Ramon Ramirez, Meet Gamergate's first political candidate, The Daily Dot, Nov 4 2014.

The same article was also published in the Washington Post: [45]

Further coverage in The Mary Sue and The Austin Chronicle Andreas JN466 22:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I was going to post that earlier but then I noticed it was basically a Daily Dot source, and while interesting it was posted through the Wa Post without comment, still begs it as a questionable RS and not sure if needed/useful at this point --MASEM (t) 00:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with the daily dot? By passed through, I suppose you recognize it passed through their editors? --DHeyward (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Dot is generally considered a reliable source. Not sure there is much we can justify beyond a sentence as Andreas suggested.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd really like to see us move off non-mainstream sources unless it is a point that is critical and only can be substantiated by weaker but otherwise reliable sources, simple to remove any claims of media bias. DD is one of those types of sources. --MASEM (t) 05:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The WaPo reference, Vox reference by Klein and others, shows there is a political story that isn't nearly as one-sided as the Wikipedia article. In fact, acknowledging it as a political issue with one sifde calling misogyny/harassment and the other calling it journalism ethics is entire controversy. No NPOV reliable source discounts these views. Neither view is the "right" view nor is either view extreme. The article in Wikipedia is extremely biased to the extent that liberal editorials are covering the issue with more neutrality than the article. Ezra Klein's piece in Vox is a liberal POV piece that understands the gamers' complaints are not without merit. It contrasts sharply with the Wikipedia article which should be more neutral than a liberal editor's piece on the same topic. The first step is acknowledgin that GamerGate is political topic that reaches beyond Gamers, Developers and GameJournos. This coverage and others make that clear. --DHeyward (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Klein nowhere says that the complaints have any sort of merit. What he says is that "It has members who want clearer disclosure policies in gaming journalism." This is a statement of fact — it is true that there are such members. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be some sort of intricate trolling attempt. (inb4 whining about WP:RS) Kelly's speech is oddly similar to this Clickhole hit piece on the pro-gg side: [46]. But of course, due to WP:RS being zealously upheld when it fits the narrative, this will be disregarded as non-notable, like the mounting proof of third party trolls, which, due to heavy pushing of No True Scotsman, also isn't being acknowledged. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 05:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, she already pulled her vid <redact blp violation - don't speculate on motivation> --MASEM (t) 05:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There are many things being speculated, however I suppose its good to wait until evidence is compiled. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 07:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Swedish media outlet "NyheterIdag" reports on Gamergate and journalism corruption

Consensus has been reached that these swedish newspapers are not reliable sources (3 against, 1 for) Avono♂ (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Speaking of reliable sources, recently Swedish meida have been writing about Gamergate and about how media is trying to push and spin a false narrative. The articles can be found here: http://nyheteridag.se/svenska-dagbladet-jamfor-gamergate-med-breivik/ And here: http://nyheteridag.se/nu-har-gamergate-har-natt-sverige-visar-sig-att-svensk-press-ar-en-del-av-korruptionen/ Wikipedia wanted some reliable sources and there you have it.--Thronedrei (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Can you show this has a reputation for reliable information in Sweeden? Halfhat (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC) So I've only taken a brief look at this and Google Translate isn't always the most reliable, but... the alleged issue "discovered" is that a Swedish journalist is Facebook friends with two people they interviewed. Really? Seriously? That's what the movement is going to hang its hat on? Because that's not meaningful evidence of anything. Facebook is widely used for personal and professional networking and being Facebook friends is not even evidence, much less proof, of anything unethical or improper. I'm not particularly familiar with Swedish media, but this outlet's Twitter account has fewer than 700 followers, while the major newspapers in Sweden have 70,000. Suggests to me that, at best, it's a marginal source, and the claims made seem rather outlandish. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC) per WP:FORUM please refrain from posting your personal opinion. If the source should be included at all then it should only mention that fact. Avono♂ (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Discussing a source's reliability and the credibility of a claim in the context of whether material is suitable for inclusion is precisely what an article talk page is for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC) The site has been referenced before on a small page, I couldn't find much on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czon#External_links and it's meant to be linked on this page, but no clue where Halfhat (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Also, these are both unsigned editorial opinions. If we decide Nyheter Idag's opinion on GamerGate is notable, I would not object to using this article as an example of the opposition to the mainstream POV. I would strenuously object to including any reference of the absurd claim that there is any meaningful ethical issue with being Facebook friends with someone. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC) The claim is absurd? Naturally one can add people on facebook without truly being friends with them, but does that mean the point isn't a valid one? If a person is friends with another person then they are immaterially compromised right? The same reasoning need to be applied in this as in court cases. You can't have friends of a suspect do the actual investigation of the suspect right? So when a journalist writes an article concerning his friends and he paints them up as heroes... then that article could no longer be considered a reliable source right? "NyheterIdag" also mention that Swedish media (much like how other media have compared GG to ISIS) have compared GG to "Breivik". Breivik is a convicted bomber and massmurderer in Norway for those of you that aren't familiar with his work. So NyheterIdag" was pointing out the absurd way media was handling the GG issue.--Thronedrei (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Yes, the claim is absurd. No, journalists do not become "materially compromised" by being connected with someone on a social network commonly used for professional and personal networking. Journalism has nothing to do with legal proceedings. What next, "a journalist had a drink in a bar with two developers during PAX, so s/he is biased"? Journalists are not monks, robots or jurors and there has never been any ethical, moral or legal prohibition against having professional social relationships with your peers, colleagues, etc. In fact, a significant amount of reporting would never take place if not for the development of such relationships. How do you think reporters gain the trust of sources, develop deeper insights into the issues of what they're covering or make the contacts that aren't listed on someone's website? They, yes, talk to people in social gatherings. Real reporting doesn't take place at staged press conferences — it takes place after hours when your source has had a couple beers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Either way it really doesn't matter, so please stop this. Halfhat (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC) A journalists job is to report information and news, not propaganda and opinions. If said journalists is actually part of the news themselves or friends with the object of the article, then they can no longer be considered objective which should in turn disqualify them as a reliable source in the case of the news subject. If a journalist had a drink with somebody then no, that would not disqualify them, if said journalist had a drink with a person and then sex or something, then THAT would immediately disqualify them as a reliable source. Interviews that are given to friends can not be seen as anything other than just advertising. So to answer your unasked question -- no, I would rather these interviews go away. If they go away then these people that give these interviews would be forced to talk to actually unbiased journalists if they wanted to inform people of something. Journalists are not robots, but they should only deliver facts, not propaganda. Andy journalists that express personal opinions should be fired!--Thronedrei (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC) per Nyheter_Idag on metapedia (spam backlisted) it seems to be a very small fringe newspaper, therefore it isn't reliable. However I do not find the claims absurd its just dosn't have enough evidence and can therefore not be inserted. Avono♂ (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC) The article mentions the newspaper "Aftonbladet". Aftonbladet is far left newspaper. Of course pretty much all the major newspapers in Sweden are far left, so I guess you can't call them "fringe". Only reason why "nyheteridag" would be considered fringe, is because it isn't far left.--Thronedrei (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC) even if the news paper isn't "fringe" it is still not a reliable source, we have to wait until this "connection" is repeated by other outlets. Avono♂ (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC) But in this case it is pretty much an impossibility. All the major newspapers in Sweden are faaaar left leaning, some like "Expressen" have even been reported to... well, just do a search for "Swedish Expressen" and you'll know what I'm talking about. That said, In Sweden all the major newspapers are pretty much one and the same. They are all "facebook friends" so to speak. So expecting some other news outlet in Sweden report on this is pretty much impossible since in doing so they would report on their friends right? As with everything else though, I feel this should be included in the article at least as a "A Swedish outlet media reports on Journalist corruption in other Swedish outlet media regarding GG" Because we don't actually need another outlet to report the same thing for us to include in the article that a Swedish media has reported this.--Thronedrei (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC) though luck then since No Original Research is allowed we have to just wait till the "impossible" happens. Avono♂ (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Well, how about this article written on the minor Swedish Internet news outlet "motpol"? http://www.motpol.nu/oskorei/2014/10/01/gamergate/ I feel it gives a pretty balanced view on things as it also points out the far left agenda that dominates the Swedish media. Or how about this article also from NyheterIdag: http://nyheteridag.se/gamergate-nu-reser-sig-spelnordarna-upp-mot-eliten/--Thronedrei (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC) While this seems to be taken care of, for future reference I'll confirm that nyheteridag.se is a fringe newspaper in Sweden, founded by the extreme right. The same is true for "motpol", which is a neo-nazi site. The description of all the major newspapers in Sweden as far left leaning also doesn't match reality. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Nature of the controversy

It seems to me that these two sentences are contradictory:

Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy which started in August 2014, concerning misogyny and harassment in video game culture.

The controversy began when indie game developer Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleged that Quinn had a romantic relationship with a journalist for the video game news site Kotaku.

If the controversy is about misogyny and harassment, it can't have began with the blog post, since the blog post wasn't about those things. Either the controversy began with the harassment, or the controversy is also about ethics or something else directly related to the initial blog post.

Thoughts? Λυδαcιτγ 15:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The blog post caused extraordinarily vicious and widespread harassment of Quinn, and that is generally regarded as the start of the controversy. Would you prefer "it began after indie game devleoper..."? -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Misogyny and harassment issue came up after the allegations at Quinn, so logically the controversy cannot solely be about misogyny and harassment. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The controversy as described in RS centres on misogyny and harassment. The article doesn't even say it's solely about that. Not sure what is being argued here. Does anyone have specific content changes they want? — Strongjam (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the 'people calling the things gamergate does misogynistic' part came after the 'gamergate doing the things people called misogynistic' part. That's how cause and effect works. That doesn't mean that the controversy isn't about misogyny and harassment. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Accusing someone of a conflict of interest is not inherently misogynistic. Yes, the pattern of behavior extrapolated back would suggest it is part of the same, but again, when you have a debate between two sides, one arguing against the statue quo, it is the norm to talk about their side first even if it is the minority view. Denying that ethics are involved even if the proGG claims are not thoroughly documented, and weighing heavily on the press's opinion of the matter considers that claim false, is not how one writes a neutral article. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course accusing somebody of a conflict of interest is not inherently misogynistic, but that doesn't prove a thing any more than the first question in your RFC does. This isn't as simple as 'they accused a woman of doing a bad thing - that's misogyny!' no matter how much the gaters in their echo chambers are telling themselves that's the case. The problem is who they accused, and how, and on what evidence, and what happened after the accusations - the death threats, the rape threats, the midnight calls to parents screaming 'you're daughter's a whore!' To an outside observer it's clear that the 'ethics' angle is a thin justification for the harassment of a woman. This is how social commentary works: people making reasoned observations. Those are the concerns that the sources talking about this issue are expressing. That's the reasoning being given for describing this in the way the vast majority of our sources do. A single source noting this harassment and discussing its effects and implications would not prove anything, but in aggregate, the large body of sources all discussing the same issues and doing no more than name-checking the 'but ethics!' counter argument do demonstrate that this is not a controversy about ethics.

The gleeful dissection of Quinn's sex life was never about ethics. That claim is not merely 'not thoroughly documented,' it's not 'documented' at all. As I've said before, there's no room on WP for playing devil's advocate. You need to use sources and policy to back up your claim. A personal theory for how the absurd drama gamergaters created about Zoe Quinn's sex life might not be misogynistic isn't going to cut it. If you'd like to use the fact that the harassment came before the backlash as evidence that gamergate is not about harassment, provide sources that show that there was good reason to be 'concerned' about Quinn's 'conflict of interest.' We're not interested in your opinions, only what you can prove. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

NPOV is all about playing Devil's Advocate - trying to present all sides of an argument in balance to the coverage in the sources. And it is very much against NPOV to shoo away any proGG discussion given the fact that mainstream sources have attempted to provide clear rational discussion on their side. As such, we cannot pretend their ethics argument doesn't exist and favor the popular opinion of misogyny over that. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it absolutely is not. Playing devils advocate involves constructing a case to defend someone or something. As you did it above it constitutes original research, not a proper application of WP:NPOV. Presenting the sources we have, weighted appropriately and avoiding fringe views, is not the same thing as 'playing devil's advocate.' So your explanation for how a mass harassment campaign against an indie dev (and, importantly, not against the journalist who supposedly gave her preferential coverage) 'might' not be misogynistic isn't helpful. You need to make your case with sources, and not merely by 'playing devil's advocate.' We're not pretending the ethics argument doesn't exist, we're just not pretending that it's what the controversy is about, because per our sources it is not. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What kind of harassment excactly? Criticism is not harassment. General negativity is also not harassment. Remember, when stating harassment, it has to be specified. Also what needs to be specified is the percentage of people committing harassment. --Artman40 (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What WP policy are you talking about that requires all of that? — Strongjam (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Threatening to rape and murder a person is harassment, as well as criminal. Threats directed towards a woman because of her gender makes it misogyny. The nature of the "controversy", i.e. the title of this article, is centralized on those misogynist threats directed at Ms. Quinn, the initial target, and subsequent threats made to media and other types who condemned the harassment. Tarc (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Threats directed towards a woman because of her gender makes it misogyny. That the threats were made towards Quinn et al because they were women is not proven. It's a pattern of threats against primarily women, so it is likely misogyny, but you cannot state that factually just based on a pattern. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I can and will state such a thing, as will our article. If reliable sources call it misogyny, then that is sufficient for our standards. The opposition by a handful here to this point is long past the pedantic stage. Tarc (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Then you are willingly going to violate NPOV. The court of public opinion does not make it fact for Wikipedia's purposes. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It does not violate NPOV, it preserves it and protects it from attempts to give undue weight to a minor point of view. I find it baffling how you can so mis-apply basic Wikipedia policy here. We write articles based on what the sources say; if a preponderance of reliable sources say that Gamergate is about harassment of women and not about ethics, then that is what we say. We're not declaring it is true, we're just reflecting what the prevailing consensus of sources is saying about he topic. Remember the old verifiable, not truth canard. Tarc (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The "verified, not truth" creed readily applies to much of the proGG side - I can tell you want they want, ala "the truth", but I cannot verify it because of the lack of sources, hence why we can't cover it. And we can more than certainly verify that the press considers much of GG misogynistic and the like, easily verified. But one has to recognize that the press are speaking their opinion on the matter, and have the most volume here as the court of public opinion which does not make it true, which "verified, not truth" does not apply to, that's where the core of NPOV comes in. The press have all jumped on their opinion based on the pattern, but there's nothing to back it up. Take the École Polytechnique massacre again - the public opinion on that is decidedly that it was a misogynistic-driven attack, but our article reflects the fact that the reason he did what he did is not clear with strong assurity. That's the same situation here - no one has looked at the actual people involved (or in fact identified them), so we should be writing that in the same clinically neutral manner described all views with a balance dictated by the predominance of the press side from the sourcing. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That's the polar opposite of what "verifiability, not truth" means. No one cares what you think is true here, nor what I think is true. All we can do is reflect how reliable sources report on the matter. It doesn't matter if the anonymous crowd are truly misogynistic in their intent, all that matters is that the vast majority of reliable sources characterize the GG movement as such, and that characterization is verifiable. Tarc (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

However there is a systematic bias in play as the sourcing that is against the proGG is nearly all opinionated against it, a case outlined in WP:BIAS. If the press reported a suspected criminal of being guilty before the legal case was complete, we on WP would not report the criminal as guilty but note the press has. That's the same we should be (and for the most part are) doing, per Strongjam's comment below), but it is getting very close to falling past that point. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What nonsense. The only WP:BIAS is that a bunch of geeky western internet trolls caused enough harassment and enough sources blabbering on ABOUT FUCKING VIDEO GAMES that they have a more complete article about the trouble they have caused than most leaders of countries in Africa, Asia, or South America. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If calling the actions misogynistic is a WP:NPOV issue, then of all the uses of misogyny in the article there are only two that I think might fail:

• Because these discussions often featured verbal attacks, misogynistic harassment of Quinn and others
• Upon additional threats towards Sarkeesian, Wu, and Day, the international media focused on GamerGate's predilection for violent, misogynistic threats and its inability to present any coherent message for positive change.

The rest all are either attributed to people, or clearly summarizing what a number of commentators say. I don't think this is a huge POV issue and could be easily fixed if this is what the issue is. — Strongjam (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, right now the article does a decent job avoiding stating it as fact (outside of the above, and the first lede sentence), but we're at the cliff edge and need to be careful and aware it's very easy to fall from that. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Cut it out, all of you. Can you not see that just warring over neutrality has made this article a bloated unusable mess? The article isn't even readable. Neutrality matters, but other things matter too.HalfHat 16:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfhat (talk • contribs)

If this article were really well written, you know what it would do? It would open with a lead that quickly summarizes the controversy in a chronological order, properly and impartially attributing points of view - that means without directly accusing any one side of ethical or moral wrongdoing. The lead wouldn't say journalism is bent, and it wouldn't say Gamergate is misogynist; it would say "these people hold these stances".

Afterward, the article would be organized in a logical fashion with neutral headers that let the reader know what they're about to read. We would not place Gamergate supporters under their own special header labelled "Role of misogyny" with a picture of a Gamergate supporter under there - we would just have articles that read "Harassment", "Media response", "Political commentary", and the like. Headers that could go any direction and that could be used to sort out any opinion or important development regardless of how vague or specific.

For example, under a "Harassment" header, we might start by explaining what happened with Zoe, drop in some details, if any, about revenge harassment against Gamergate (because no side has been immaculate, thank you), carry on with the additional harassment issues the press have brought up since the initial ones, then make a sub-header explaining police response to these threats and how they've been handled - if possible, how it may affect handling online threats in the future. LOGICAL INFORMATION A READER WILL WANT TO KNOW FOLLOWING THIS INFO. You see how having sane, neutral headers could allow us to actually organize the page!

A bigger thing is, not everyone coming to this page is a Gamergate enemy or supporter. A lot of people coming here just want to know what Gamergate is and how it impacts THEIR PERSONAL LIFE. They don't care whether or not certain Wiki editors think that Gamergate is a bunch of misogynistic hobgoblins, because whether or not the movement was forged in the fires of Mount Doom is kind of irrelevant if the article doesn't explain why any of this is even important to anyone in the first place! And presently it does a terrible job of explaining how it's relevant to anyone! Because it focuses so exclusively on establishing Gamergate as evil hobgoblins!

I would really love if it we could just agree to establish a straightforward article. However, we can't seem to get over the ideological hurdle that there is evil at work and that it must be exposed. As if some of us don't realize that people are just clever chimps and that, if anything, there's a great deal more knee-jerk emotional reactions than nefarious plans - at least as far as anyone knows, until we can otherwise reveal Dr. Claw is behind all of it. YellowSandals (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I really feel like I need to place particular emphasis on this: Whether or not you think Gamergate is misogynist is useless information to anyone who does not care to be part of the conflict. It is a moral judgement that provides NO factual information to a reader and it doesn't explain anything to anyone who doesn't instantly believe how "factual" that moral accusation is. By focusing so much on the moral particulars - that's what's made this article completely useless to any readers. The average person does not come to a Wiki page to see, "Oh, the KKK are immoral bigots! Great! That's all I needed!" They come to learn about how and why the KKK was formed and other factual details they won't hear from a frothing idiot who knows nothing more than that "the KKK is bigots 'cause they done bigot things". YellowSandals (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Misogynist thing is misogynist. Your moral judgement of that is your own. Artw (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not something is misogynist is determined entirely by context! Such is the nature of moral opinion! It is not something you can measure like heat or the distance to the sun. It is something an individual person comes to an emotional decision about based on the information their limited personal perspective allows them to have. This logic DOES NOT WORK. It doesn't make a good, informational article. You could argue that "stupid things are stupid", but you wouldn't write Wikipedia leads by saying "This article's subject is stupid", even if you had a large number of sources that agreed with you.

I am so sick of hearing this. What madness drives you to think that you can objectively understand the rationale of people you have not even met. Even if you knew these people personally, you still couldn't read their minds! Who qualified you and the journalists to be the undisputed arbiters of misogyny? YellowSandals (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"How can anyone know anything, man? What if we are all brains in tanks!" seems a bit beyond the scope of this conversation. Here we just go by WP:RS. Artw (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not metaphysics, and it boggles my mind that you would think of it as such. That you'd have such a hardcore, religious belief in misogyny that you think you can just feel it like God's light or something, and questioning its presence in some people is akin to questioning the entire universe. And then you go and influence the article with this thinking.

You know, as far as I can tell, this conflict mainly revolves around vicious mobs. One side is angry because they're constantly getting thumped on by a bunch of twenty-something moral extremists, and the other side is angry because the reaction to that constant thumping was so terrifyingly volatile. There's extreme elements mixed in there making prominent news, but that's because it's an angry mob! And who do we find on the Wikipedia talk page but a collection of editors still trying to give these people a moral thumping! And you wonder why this hasn't wound down at all over several months! For goodness sake, you could diffuse this by just being neutral and letting people feel like they aren't trapped in defensive corners! YellowSandals (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WE are not giving anyone a "moral thumping", the majority of reliable sources are doing that. We are writing an article based on that. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

And thus that is an immediately failure of NPOV. We can describe the "moral thumping" that the press has given with numerous sources, but we are absolutely not allowed to take their side. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Until you get consensus to declare NPOV dead, you are stuck with it. And you need to stop beating the dead horse attempting to get something else to apply here. NO. We follow NPOV as it has been approved by consensus for the whole project. Deal with it.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This applies to saying things in WP's voice. Wikipedia cannot say the antiGG side it right, though it can lay out all the quotes that justify why the antiGG side sees the proGG as bad and evil and all that. Similarly, Wikipedia cannot say the proGG side is right. As the bulk of the accusations on either side are all opinions and not fact, they are all required to be attributed to something else besides WP's voice. That's NPOV. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Masem, you don't even know what you're objecting to anymore. I just said what you said, "We can describe the "moral thumping"". Describing it isn't taking a side, any more than describing Israeli apartheid actually takes the side that Israel actually is practicing apartheid. We are going to describing that it is the prevailing point-of-view, though, and that "but ethics" is minor. Tarc (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Your statement implied otherwise, so my bad if I misread it to mean that we were going to criticize GG in WP's voice. Documenting the opinions in that vein is just fine, however. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is written to intentionally cast a group in a bad light, which has made it not only sloppy because it's constantly slanting everything with circuitous wording, but also virtually worthless because nobody but the invested parties really cares which side is GI Joe and which side is Cobra Command. Of course Gamergate thinks it's GI Joe and anti-Gamergate thinks they're GI Joe. A lot of news articles have declared that Gamergate is Cobra Command. However, these are all moral opinions. Worthless, empty calories in an article functionally composed of packing peanuts. You do not just say, "Everyone agrees Gamergate is Cobra Command" like it's a grade school playground. This is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to inform people of who, what, when, and where. That means that Wikipedia says, "These people agreed Gamergate was Cobra Command, but Gamergate insisted it was GI Joe". You don't write the entire article trying to prove why Gamergate should be recognized as Cobra Command and why Gamergate is wrong. YellowSandals (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No, this article itself does not take a "side", and if it paints the "but ethics" crowd in a bad light, that is because it is reflecting what the majority of the outside world sees it as. The Wikipedia itself is not saying that Gamergaters are misogynist harassers, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the BBC, and countless others are. Your beef is with them, much the same as the American conservatives who call them selves "Tea Partiers" scream about the "liberal media" all day. In both cases, that's just kinda...too bad. The Gamergater concern about ethics in gamer journalism will be mentioned, but it will be done in a way that makes clear that the media considers it a minority point of view, almost to the point of outright dismissal. Tarc (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Go! Go look at the Tea Party article! Under "Teabagger", it says, "News media and progressive commentators outside the movement began to use the term mockingly and derisively..."

You see how that properly attributes point of view. It says who uses the slur and why. Look, I will relent on this as soon as you can tell me a rough estimate of how many cubic centimeters of misogyny are present in the Gamergate movement. Until you can quantify something for me, this "misogyny" thing is a derisive moral accusation, and one that appears to be pissing the Gamergate movement off. The Tea Party page doesn't set out to explicitly represent that group in accordance to their morality, and it is a bad example to support your argument. YellowSandals (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, the point WHOOSHED over your head. It has nothing to do with however Tea Partiers are talked about in the Wikipedia. It has to do with your complaints about how you're pro-GG side isn't being represented fairly by the media, which is the same thing they say. To which I respond "too bad". It isn't the Wikipedia's problem to deal with perceptions and opinions of media bias. If the media is predominantly critical of Gamergaters, then the focus of this article will be on that critique. If you think the media is biased, this encyclopedia project is not the proper platform from which to fight that fight. An encyclopedia reflects the sources; it does not originate its own content, it does not distill what the sources say on a subject. 1. They say ---> 2. We report what they say. All of the pro-GG angst on this talk page directly stems from trying to bend that unbendable arrow that points from 1 to 2. Stop doing that., and we'll all be better off for it. Tarc (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Everyone make sure to familiarize yourselves with WP:NOTFORUM, this thread is veering heavily into that direction. Stick to the editorial content of the article and Follow the WP:Reliable sources as well as WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and W:BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 20:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply - didn't think the discussion would move THAT quickly! Yes, after seems better to me. I personally don't think that the original post was misogynistic and so hadn't considered that it could be even be associated with misogyny. Though this article seems to take that interpretation - perhaps with justification - I think it's still more consistent to say that the controversy began after the post than with it, since whether or not the post was misogynistic, it wasn't explicitly about misogyny.

I'll change it now. Λυδαcιτγ 15:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection, please?

Every time full protection expires it reverts to wide open, resulting in crap. Tarc (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Done - changed back to semi. - Bilby (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

While annoying I can't help finding this kind of trolling darkly amusing. Anyway I find it surprising they can't have it auto revert to semiprotection. HalfHat 18:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll- Remove the political views sections within GamerGate activism

I don't see how it adds any value, just a lot of bloat and unneeded opinion. We don't need every thought on it ever to have it's own section. Halfhat (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Vote

• it doesnt make sense as "political views" under "gamergate activism" (but "gamergate activism" doesnt make much sense itself) - the content is probably appropriate for a "reception and analysis" types section. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

No.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have nothing to add then there's no point saying anything. Halfhat (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom Have you seen how long that section is, what does it really add, the article is unusably long. Halfhat (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Ignore this comment please HalfHat 20:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Cutting this article to a managable size

I know it's probably in vain, but to show the kind of things I think need done to fix this article, I have made a copy in my sandbox, and have been making the sort of changes I think need made to the real one. It's still very much a work in progress. HalfHat 08:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You conspicuously cut out a lot of content that is critical of GamerGate. Or that refutes GamerGate in some way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I've still got a lot of cutting to do. There is just a lot more antiGG stuff in general so ofcourse more will get cut. If there's any bits you think need cut though, I'm certainly open to suggestions. HalfHat 10:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Since this moves quickly I've cut this short to work on the real one. The last version (which is still very far from finished remember) is here. Please check it out.I'll go back to it if someone wants to me to try something major out. HalfHat 20:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"After lack of feedback from straw poll. If you have an argument for inclusion please make a talk section after reverting, and explain why"

There are many, many new sections created on this page each day. I do not believe that lack of response to one should be considered consensus. Artw (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. There was one "no" in the straw poll (and when you go right to a vote rather than starting with a discussion you shouldn't be surprised if voting is all people do) and one comment that the content could go in a different section. There were no responses indicating that wholesale removal was a good idea. Why'd you even ask if you weren't going to listen? -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I was meaning. I never said I was talking the lack of response to be consensus, just that I know of no justification for this long section. The article has length issues without 5kB of unneeded text. We can't just include every opinion ever in this article. HalfHat 19:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

That section is a bit of a mess, that last paragraph is completely out of place, and I'm not really sure about the 2nd paragraph either (not saying they don't belong at all, just not really in that section.) I think the article does need to talk about how the issue is being politicized though. — Strongjam (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Decided to try being bold and moved the paragraph on using archive sites to the section about targeting advertisers. Seems like a better fit. — Strongjam (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As a neutral admin, though, as pointed out above, your "removals" appear to be slanted in one direction only. If you suggested shortening the article by removing excessively long pro- and anti-Gamergate sections, this would be better. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm far from done with the cutting in my sandbox. And like I said if there are any major cuts you think I missed please say. I have made cuts to both, but since the article has more anti stuff that's where most of the cuts have been made. Anyway I'm mostly doing it the sandbox edits to get people thinking about where cuts can be made, I was never really suggesting making it the new article, it's more of a demonstration. Ideally I want to get it down to about half the current length, that'll take some work though. HalfHat 20:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The removals you made in your sandbox are also heavily slanted in one direction, as I pointed out above.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If there are bits needing cuts I've missed I'd be greatful for the help. HalfHat 20:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It's absolutely fine to make changes in your sandbox and then present them to the community for examination, it's probably not to make them to the live article without doing so. Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I just feel something needs done, and no one seems interested trying to trim it to a reasonable size, I guess my fustration clouded my judgement. HalfHat 20:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyway can we get back to why that section is needed. HalfHat 20:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Can I ask though what the section in it's current state adds? No one has actually answered this. If you want some of the information I'd suggest putting the right wing hate comment in the nature and organisation section, I think that paragraph on it's own would maybe be warranted. HalfHat 21:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate and the politicization of absolutely everything

Gamergate in a nutshell here [47]. I posted a template of issues a few weeks ago. This is another neutral observation of issues that define Gamergate controversy. --DHeyward (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That article gives voice and balance to what is missing from WP's article. The WP article is skewed very much to one side. Ezra Klein's piece highlights the fractured nature and politics that drive the coverage and POV. Our article is not a NPOV representation. --DHeyward (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This article has been brought up before. I personally think it's among one of the more valuable examinations of Gamergate so far, and I agree with a lot of it. However, it doesn't address many specific details regarding the movement or controversy. It would be nice for a quote, but I think the consensus was that it doesn't expand a whole lot on any hard information. While I agree with the take it presents, it's also one of only a handful that describes Gamergate as a symptom of widening social biases. Most articles so far just focus on moral accusations. YellowSandals (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"18. And no one should dismiss the very real, very dangerous harassment that's happening under Gamergate's banner." is what I have been saying for a month now, yes. Tarc (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice that nobody has disagreed with you, Tarc. YellowSandals (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Um, every editor that has ever tried to water down the opening line of "is a controversy which started in August 2014, concerning misogyny and harassment in video game culture" has disagreed with me, actually. Tarc (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize "harassment" was synonymous with "misogyny". In which case, yes. I guess we have been arguing about that. What I meant, however, using normal English, is that not even Gamergate has been downplaying the impact the harassment has had on their movement. They acknowledge it and have been intentionally trying to distance themselves from it! A lot of articles discuss this and are doing their best to prevent Gamergate from establishing that distance. YellowSandals (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, the sources cited don't really buy into the "Gamergater-who-isn't-a-harasser" shtick, they are all painted with one broad brush despite the pleas to the contrary. Again, that isn't the Wikipedia's problem to address. Tarc (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The article by Klein just did. He didn't filter out the uncomfortable voices either. Just matter of factly stated the issue. It isn't all misogyny and harassment. He also didn't dismiss those aspects. --DHeyward (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, I know you and the others don't like it when I make a controversial statement about another group to explain how your logic is wrong, but it seems to hit home so I'll do it again.

"The thing is, the sources cited don't really buy into the "homosexual-who-doesn't-have-AIDS" shtick, they are all painted with one broad brush despite the pleas to the contrary. Again, that isn't the Wikipedia's problem to address."

Okay, so if this had been about a group I assume you have no qualms with, you can see how your broad generalization doesn't feel like justice. I remind there was a time when it was broadly thought that AIDS was a homosexual disease, though we know better now. You need to understand, you are playing the role of a moral guardian. Your arguments are the same as the moral guardians before you. What you're doing is not revolutionary. It's tired, and played out, and thousands of years old. Additionally, you're using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy incorrectly. This is not "No True Scotsman". You're making a negative stereotype about a group of people, and then you're attacking the stereotype. Nobody is saying, "No true Gamergate supporter commits harassment so therefore harassers are excluded from the movement" here. We are saying it's biased to depict a movement using its most negative possible stereotype while using Wikipedia's voice to do so. Repeatedly, I have merely asked that we attribute points of view. YellowSandals (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

These comparisons do not 'hit a nerve,' and the 'I'm annoying people, so that proves I must be right!' attitude is simply juvenile. How can you possibly think a comparison like this is a good idea? Aside from being pointlessly inflammatory, it's not even remotely accurate, because "all homosexuals have AIDS" is not a perspective that is presented in even a tiny minority of reliable sources. This is essentially the WP:RS version of 'if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you, too?' The problem here is that sources who are in the habit of reporting as fact things like 'all homosexuals have AIDS' very quickly gain a reputation for being unreliable (as Brietbart has, in fact, for its own habit of publishing completely fabricated stories to harm political opponents.) -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

All you're espousing is the use of negative stereotypes to denigrate groups you disagree with, following a bandwagon to behave as though that's acceptable. Yes, the majority of public opinion doesn't hold this view of AIDS any longer, but several decades ago that was the case. This kind of thing is why it's important to remain neutral and write in terms of perspectives, rather than in concrete formats of "this group is wrong because everyone agrees they're wrong". We have a situation where gaming journals are declaring that gamers are dead and this is referenced to a group that was blamed for the Columbine Shooting and other violent sprees. Their critics have been publicly lauded and given prime television time to explain what's wrong with gamers today. Anita Sarkeesian and other critics have been calling gamers misogynists for a while now, using the backlash against that to fuel politicization of the topic as this article discusses. But yet you want to depict this battle as one of good versus evil. You want to throw gasoline on a fire - that's all you're doing with your contributions here. We could write from a neutral perspective and not add to the vitriol, but Wikipedia has failed in that so far. YellowSandals (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

please stay focused on this article and on the sources talking about this subject and NOT on your presumptions of other editors motives (or wildly inappropriate analogies) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You have used every possible form of mental gymnastics to justify writing one group in this controversy as the bad guy. You are presently writing an un-readable article that has very little relevant information in it. The vendetta against Gamergate is basically killing this thing. They see themselves as the victims here, and you want to keep attacking them. I'm telling you to knock it off. Do it on your blog if you have to. But for Wikipedia, stick to the facts. This is not the place to denigrate groups you dislike or to report negative stereotypes as being factually honest. YellowSandals (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not a "negative stereotype" - it's an observation of what the group has mostly done. Repeating "it's about ethics in gaming journalism" like it's a magic talisman does not provide a shield for harassment, and the fact that the movement has not raised any meaningful issues of "ethics in gaming journalism" in months is something that reliable outside observers have taken judicial notice of. It is not "stereotyping" to define a group by what it does rather than by what it says. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hat off-topic WP:FORUM. Dreadstar ☥ 23:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You know, have you ever argued with Neo-Nazis? I get around the internet. I have. They're frustrating. You know what they say about their stubborn, bigoted views? They say they're just making factual observations about other people. Like they've got the world figured out. Selfish ideologues are all the same, and the rhetoric is identical across the entire political spectrum. Nobody bills themselves as the bad guys. Not the KKK, not the Nazis - nobody. So when you attack a group of people through a medium that's supposed to be neutral, why is your justification the same repetitive, droning nonsense I hear from Neo-Nazis explaining their misanthropic opinions? Being able to dislike a group for reasons you can justify in your head does not make you superior to any ideologue or inquisitor before you. Any fool who convinces himself he's above such mistakes will quickly fall to those mistakes. This article is too ideological, and it's written on the attack against a specific social group. This is not appropriate. YellowSandals (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I decline to further discuss this issue with someone who compares me to a neo-Nazi. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I compared you to a human. YellowSandals (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC) No one has disagreed that it's an element of GamerGate. Your argument that it's the only thing or that it's primarily about any single thing is addressed quite nicely in that article as the view of social justice warriors. There are equally narrow views that GG is only about journalism ethics. There are many elements and facets of gamergate. Balance and NPOV require a more overall view of issues brought up by GG, including harassment, game journal ethics, game developer ethics, role of politics in gaming, etc, etc. --DHeyward (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Where are the sources that focus on the "but ethics" aspect of gamergate? Cause there are dozens and dozens that focus on the harassment and per WP:UNDUE it will take at least several that focus on something other than the harassment to merit coverage that does not almost entirely focus on the harassment.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

By neatly discounting conservative sources, there are only liberal sources left. This article gives credence to the use of Breitbart as a source as the argument is political. --DHeyward (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There is really only one conservative source that has been discounted here and that's Breitbart (website) due to their history.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

And that is not due to their history of being conservative, it is due to their history of not being reliable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Not according to Ezra Klein and this piece. It finds Breitbart reliable enough to cite and gives voice to pro-GG POV instead of only anti-GG POV. Klein is hardly a conservative and is very reliable. He took Breitbart on its face as a reliable source for GamerGate. His judgement is what should add Breitbart as a reliable source for this article. --DHeyward (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:RSN. Best of luck. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

RSN is not the place for case-by-case assessments for inclusion. Klein is reliable. He cites specific Breitbart published articles, not Breitbart. Per the guideline, case-by-case reliability applies and use by Klein and Vox is a compelling argument for inclusion. --DHeyward (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:RSN is the perfect place to get an independent assessment of a questionable source, case-by-case or no. There's an existing consensus, and not just on this page, that Brietbart is not a reliable source. No amount of discussion at the article talkpage level can override that: you need to make a case at WP:RSN. If your argument that another source mentioning Breitbart articles is enough to justify including them in this article is sound, you should have no problem convincing editors there. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec) You must have missed this on your way to 18: "14. It's worth stopping for a moment to say that Gamergate, as well as the reaction against it, isn't any one thing. It includes horrifying, probably criminal, harassment against pretty much any women who dare oppose it. It's partly an argument about what kinds of games the gaming press should cover — and, by extension, what kinds of games developers should make. It has members who want clearer disclosure policies in gaming journalism. It has a lot of people who joined because they hate feminism and internet "social justice" warriors. And it has many people, on both sides, who are far surer about who they're fighting than what they're fighting about." --DHeyward (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of putting something up from this. But more importantly I think we need to strip a lot out of the current article. Also I thought I posted this, did I forget or something? HalfHat 21:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The lead should be updated to include a wordsmithed version of "14. It's worth stopping for a moment to say that Gamergate, as well as the reaction against it, isn't any one thing. It includes horrifying, probably criminal, harassment against pretty much any women who dare oppose it. It's partly an argument about what kinds of games the gaming press should cover — and, by extension, what kinds of games developers should make. It has members who want clearer disclosure policies in gaming journalism. It has a lot of people who joined because they hate feminism and internet "social justice" warriors. And it has many people, on both sides, who are far surer about who they're fighting than what they're fighting about." It's a neutral account in a reliable source and has been covered elsewhere in multiple sources including a game developer. --DHeyward (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

What about moving the "further harassments" section into the misogyny/antifeminism section and combining it with the "attacks on women" section

It seems more logical to me, and I thinkby combing them we could possible make it more concise. HalfHat 20:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

no. the attacks and further attacks are "history"/"what happened" and that is different than the analysis of what happened. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It's the same for a lot of the stuff in the GGA section, there's just too much going on to have it with the history.HalfHat 10:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I want to rearrange the article a bit

I think the media response and debate of ethics sections or sort of a hodge podge of stuff. I want to make the media response mostly about comments of the media themselves, the debate section I thinkk could probably get broken up and integrated, but that's something for another day. HalfHat 11:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hacing two sections of just "stuff" arranges in teirs of goodness is just terrible writing, we need to think of the article as a whole. HalfHat 11:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we should just get rid of the media section and disperse those comments into the article where appropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at doing so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you have. But there isn't enough overall, please ignore that comment I didn't give it the time to properly explain and think through what I was saying. HalfHat 11:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is the section as a whole is pretty much just a "stuff" section, I think all of it would fit into the other sections. I think the inclusion of that section pretty much sums up everything wrong with this article, it's barely an article just a list of everything to do with GG, opinions and facts. Also that source is one of the few commenting on journalism itself, and if we're looking at the media response that's what we need, not just "here are some more opinions from the media". HalfHat 11:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, the hard part here is trying to fairly tell a story that the movement can't properly explain. If the movement is about journalism ethics, then obviously there should be some specific ethical concerns that we can talk about... but because there's no coherent messaging and no agreed-upon platform, we're hard-pressed to describe those concerns, which means we don't have much of a rebuttal to the idea that it isn't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right there. This is notoriously hard to explain, but I think we can do a better job. But I don't think that means we can just have stuff sections, if everything is better organised you can also combine things and words them more concisely. Just because GG lacks lacks a proper structure doesn't mean the article should. HalfHat 11:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Once this article is cleaned up this could add some information

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/mackenzie-kelly-austin-gamergate/ And mirrored here. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/11/04/a-female-politician-is-running-for-office-on-the-gamergate-platform/ It covers a few things and could maybe fill a couple holes for example you could use it to attribute GG views to an actual person, the title is a bit misleading. HalfHat 12:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Already raised above. Could IMO be used to add a sentence to the diversity section. Andreas JN466 16:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Decent article for proGG opinions

I'd suggest that if someone decides to use this, to find something it could replace and to keep it consise. http://adland.tv/adnews/can-gamergate-be-rebranded-should-it-be/376533440 or wecould wait until the article is a more reasonable size. HalfHat 16:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a WP:SPS, so I don't think it's really usable unless a WP:RS points to it. — Strongjam (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize. HalfHat 18:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

What source?

What sources directly support the material you're trying to add. Adding 'some' to things in numerous places seems to me like you're trying to euphemize and emphasize that a vast majority of them are sending these threats which is patently untrue. State which source you're getting this information from. Red. Tutelary (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The inline citations would seem to support TRPoD's revisions. They do not appear to support the version Tutelary has been reverting to. CIreland (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much every citation indicates that the gamergate is an amorphous, anonymous, leaderless, and platformless gaggle. Implying that they all do or believe anything is problematic, as you have been quite instant on making sure that anything related to the death threats is attributed to only "some" - that same instance must be made for any other thing attributed to some of them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The Open Standard apologizes to GamerGate.

Found this while i was browsing. Apparently it is rather old, but I don't recall seeing it mentioned anywhere in the article or on the talk board. https://openstandard.mozilla.org/our-sincerest-apologies/ The gist of it seems to be that "The Open Standard" wrote an uninformed article about GamerGate, got some feedback and then retracted the article, apologizing that it had been written.--Thronedrei (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

actually, the gist is that gamergate is not about "open systems" which is what Open Standard is supposed to focus on and that it will be more clear in distinguishing between content , views and promotions of the Open Standard brand and the Mozilla brand. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Still they apologized for writing the article and they retracted it, noting how dumb it was to write about something they knew nothing about and really had nothing to do with. If only more "news outlets" had been this wise.--Thronedrei (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

No, they did not retract the article. No, they did not say it was dumb to write about something they knew nothing about, they said it was a mistake to write about something that is not the topic they cover.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

They did retract this one (which is the only one people were pissed about). 404s now, but you can look it up an archived copy if you want. Protonk (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I can still access it, the 404 occurs irregularly Racuce (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

"Doxxed"

Should we be using the term "doxxed" in the article? It seems overly jargony, as well as being imprecise and variable in meaning. Artw (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Generally agree, but the term is widely used in sources so making sure the reader is familiar with the term is helpful. — Strongjam (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It is jargony, but it's also a usefully succinct description for the concept. I wouldn't be opposed to removing it, but we could also briefly explain what the concept means the first time we use it and then continue to use it as we do for the rest of the article. So something like "doxxing (publication of personal information, especially contact information)" -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

We should explain it once (or twice, once in lead, once at first body use) but that should be sufficient; expanding "dox" is very wordy after that. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It does seem a bit slangy. "Doc dropped" would be a bit better, but far from ideal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfhat (talk • contribs) 01:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. According to Merriam-Webster,[48] Reference.com,[49] and WordReference.com,[50] "dox" is not a word. We're an encyclopedia. Slang is acceptable in quotes, but not in article text. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Oxford has it. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Diversity and inclusiveness section

For discussion. Tutelary (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I still think it's much cleaner to combine it with the Sommers section. HalfHat 23:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There's obviously a significant debate as to the meaningfulness of "#NotYourShield" and it's appropriate to mention that explicitly in the section heading. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The objections raised by TDA that "implies that these facts are not facts" are exactly what the rest of us have all been saying regarding the statements on the page that are not expressly pro-Gamergate. When TechCrunch's op/ed piece is being used to cite "facts" that's an issue. And Cathy Young's piece is also an opinion. After all the complaints that "opinions are being written in Wikipedia's voice" this is exactly what you're doing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Without scrubbing around for more sources, I agree on the immediate change to put these in appropriate voices outside of WPs. Though I think there might be better sources now to support those points. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm severely disappointed in you Masem. Do you really fucking believe the existence of female and minority GamerGate supporters is an opinion?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If we are talking about this change [51] then yes, this needs better sourcing or otherwise putting language into the words of others because it is not obvious who supports GG; one weak RS is not enough. Mind you, I'm pretty sure better sourcing is there, but it would take time to locate and include. I don't doubt there are women or minorities involved, but it is arguably exactly right that any "favorable" proGG statements have to be properly sourced or sourced to someone not in WP's voice just like we're asking for the antiGG statements. Here there, I think in the longer term this can be fixed by just finding the right sources. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The existence of female supporters is not an opinion, but the assertion that media ever said GG was exclusively white and male is certainly an opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Show me where the material said the stupid shit you are claiming it said. Also, your insistence on having the heading refer to it as a "debate over diversity" and your insistence on attributing factual information as though it were opinion, not to mention your desire to exclude as many mentions as possible of women and minorities in GamerGate, hardly suggests that you want the reality of women and minorities supporting GamerGate acknowledged in this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

(Redacted) We're restating it in attributed form because Allum Bokhari and Cathy Young are polemic op-ed writers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The consensus of mass media does not mean we can evade WP:NPOV to write it in Wikipedia's voice. Tutelary (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And that means we're not going to state Allum Bokhari and Cathy Young's opinions in Wikipedia's voice either. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a bunch of attributable statements North, and most of them I don't think you'd want attributed. Tutelary (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Allum Bokhari (a political analyst) and Cathy Young (a libertarian who exclusively contributes to conservative leaning media) say two things here, you insist that they are facts and not the opinions of the writers when they are exclusively in op/ed pieces like everything that had come out of Kotaku and the like chastising the movement. Goose. Gander. You get it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to make a general request for civility. And please focus on the article not the editors. HalfHat 23:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Could someone please post a list of the sources that support the #Notyourshield text and that women and minorities who support GamerGate have received death threats and harassment? If the sources support it, I will advocate mentioning it in the article. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• If the comments about other editors continues, I'm going to move forward with sanctions per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate on everyone making those kinds of comments. Dreadstar ☥ 20:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)