Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Info in wrong section

Academic researchers at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University describe the Gamergate movement as a "vitriolic campaign against Quinn that quickly morph[ed] into a broader crusade against alleged corruption in games journalism" that "involves considerable abuse and harassment—including rape and death threats—of female developers and game critics. is in the Political views section. Does anyone else not see the irrelevance of this information to this particular section? How is this a political view? Could we move and/or merge this to somewhere else? This point has surely been made a million times over in the article. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from; perhaps it's due to the source's stated focus on public (and political) discourse. Personally, I don't think I would have an objection to moving it to a subsection where it is more appropriate, depending on the nature of the change. (Misogyny and antifeminism seems most likely.)

Alternately, I could suggest that a different quote from the same source might serve the purpose better, in the current position: "The Gamergate controversy, ostensibly intended to address ethical issues in video game journalism, quickly spiraled into a bitter debate about feminism, misogyny, online harassment, and media conspiracy that was both intensely polarized and highly politicized." AtomsOrSystems (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Potential Alternate Wording

I was thinking after I responded, does anyone have any thoughts on this alternate wording:

Academic researchers at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University noted that "The Gamergate controversy, ostensibly intended to address ethical issues in video game journalism, quickly spiraled into a bitter debate about feminism, misogyny, online harassment, and media conspiracy that was both intensely polarized and highly politicized." AtomsOrSystems (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• @AtomsOrSystems: - it's definitely an improvement - but it's still not very good. Essentially, the point is "Gamergate became highly politicized" - and it doesn't explain how or what does it even mean. The source unfortunately does not elaborate - so it's not very useful. Could we take this Potential Alternate Wording and insert into the Misogyny and antifeminism section? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: - Like I said above, I don't have any objection to moving it (either the original wording, or my alternate suggestion) to a subsection. Misogyny and antifeminism would certainly seem to be the most appropriate one. I would like to see if anyone else here has a thought on the matter before we did, though. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Okay. Anyone else would like to comment? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• @AtomsOrSystems: I inserted your proposed text in the new section. [1] starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead edits to accurately reflect both sides of the controversy

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.

---

My proposed edit has been reverted by User:Black Kite. Although the reasons for this are not entirely clear to me at the present (as I haven't been contacted about this by the editor at all), I suspect it may have to do with the fact that I followed WP:BOLD to an excessive extent and simply committed the changes without discussing them here first. This is my attempt to rectify this.

I believe that any article describing a "controversy" should mention both sides of the controversy from the get go. If only one side is at all represented, then there is no controversy and the article should be renamed. That, however, would not be an accurate representation of what's currently happening, and the rest of the article does reflect that (even if with a considerable bias towards one side). It strikes me as unreasonable to define a movement purely as something that its members do not identify with, while not allowing even a mention of their side in the introduction to the article. It provides the reader with an immediate message as to which side they should pick, while entirely erasing the other.

Any comments on the proposed edit, what's wrong (or right) with it, and how a bilateral lead should be implemented would be very much appreciated. Apples grow on pines (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Well at first glance I would have reverted it too. Your reference is not a WP:RS, it's a wiki, and user generated content should never be used as a reference. — Strongjam (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Point taken, the reference shouldn't have been there, and a more appropriate one should be found in its place. Assuming that was corrected, are there any other major issues with the edit? Apples grow on pines (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Apples, You're assuming that descriptions of Gamergate-supporters should prioritize the views of the supporters themselves. This is like assuming that articles about politicians should prioritize the views of the politicians themselves. That's simply not neutral. All relevant and reliable sources are supposed to be taken into consideration. Otherwise we would go against the concept of undue weight.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. On a more minor note regarding the formatting of "GamerGate" vs. "Gamergate," you can see the latest talk page discussion above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtomsOrSystems (talk • contribs) 21:07, 1 February 2015‎ (UTC)

Ah, no, I'm not assuming one of them should take preference. I'm merely suggesting that both should be mentioned. I was under the impression that the inclusion of "according to its supporters" would be sufficient indication of this.

I do appreciate everyone's patience with me in this discussion. I am not an experienced editor, and thus likely to make mistakes that may be obvious to others. My intention is not to introduce one narrative as "the truth" or prioritise it. However, if we're discussing a controversy, then by default we're accepting that there are (at least) two sides to it. If there weren't, it wouldn't be a controversy.

Would this article constitute a sufficiently good source for the statement that "according to its supporters, GG is about ethics"? 1. In particular, the quote "The conflict on the site began almost alongside Gamergate, a grassroots campaign broadly targeting alleged corruption in games journalism and perceived feminist influence in the videogame industry" seems to accurately explain the sentiment I'd like to convey. Apples grow on pines (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

My 2c: why not "Gamergate is a controversy related to ethics in gaming journalism, and gender relations in video game culture." We're going for neutrality, right? To actually define this (quote) "controversy"(!), through expressing the position of one side in said controversy, has to be the very meaning of "one-sided". The current state of affairs is pretty staggering..

I like the proposal, but imo we still need a proper "lead sentence". We can elaborate on who exactly says what in the following text. -- Director (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The main reason not to use your suggestion would be that the consensus of reliable sources is that the Gamergate Controversy is related to sexism in video game culture, with any concerns ethics in game journalism portrayed as secondary at best. We're obligated to portray the matter as the sources do. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Director, if both sides of this issue were in any way equal, you'd be right. But they're not equal. The ethics angle is considered fringe, while the sexism angle is clearly a mainstream opinion.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Both sides? The reliable independent sources don't seem to identify two sides, only victims and abusers. Where are the reliable indepdnent mainstream sources that portray two sides, and where's the evidence they weight them anything like equally? Guy (Help!) 23:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That's what the media coverage actually consists of. This is not the place to discuss personal opposition to it.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmm. Are victims and (alleged) abusers not "two sides"? They're one side, then? Should we be one-sided?

But what you're saying, then, is that the topic of this article is limited to some people being abused by others. How is this a "controversy" then? From what I can gather, it seems that there were complaints and accusations regarding some alleged corruption, which resulted in allegations of sexism and calls to (quote) "abolish the gamer identity", which resulted in threats, which then really had the thing take off.. Boiling it down to the threats is not only disingenuous, its rather absurd with regard to our title, if nothing else. "Gamergate Abuse" then?

But not to veer off the point, lets take the sources into account then. Proposing "Gamergate is a controversy surrounding [the issues of] journalistic ethics and sexism in video game culture." Or switch the two if you like, same difference.

What I'm trying to say is this is a complex event. Our lead sentence seems to focus on one side's view, of the later developments. And we're not really expressing what there is to "controverse" about.

Finally, I'd like to remind everyone that media sources.. aren't very good sources. We are free to take some liberty with how we summarize them. Particularly if it makes our lead sentence actually represent the conflict we're talking about. -- Director (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a complex event, but the reliable sources agree that it centers around a debate regarding sexism. Journalistic ethics are presented as secondary, at best. They're not equal, and we shouldn't portray them as such. Certainly not in the very first sentence of the article. (Edit Conflict) AtomsOrSystems (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

We have the sources we have, and some of them are fairly strong (if a touch too primary, which is perhaps unavoidable in an ongoing matter). I agree we are free to take some liberty with them. I think you're suggesting we take considerably more than some. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The first concern is to actually describe what this is about, second - to do it with regard to weight in sources. To sacrifice the latter for the sake of the former is getting one's priorities mixed up, I think. I'm not talking about equality, I'm talking first and foremost having a functional, up-to-snuff lede sentence. Have a look at the actual Watergate. -- Director (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to very strongly disagree with any attempt to 'take liberty' with our reliable sources to twist what we've sourced to say something different. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

We need to actually describe what this is about, relying on our sources to do so. If not reliable sources, what are we going to base the article on, editor opinion or even an individual editor's certainty regarding the controversy? I honestly don't understand what you're suggesting. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any difference between "description" and "summarizing reliable sources". We are supposed to base articles on sources, so they should also guide our descriptions. The "functional" description in this case is of sexism, not concerns about journalism ethics.

I have no idea what you mean by the reference to Watergate scandal, btw.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The comment: are the victims and abusers not "toe sides"? That is not what is being argued for. We already describe both victims and abusers. What we do not do is pretend that they are anything other than victims and abusers. To portray this as "two sides" is to give equal weight to the opinions of both, which the reliable independent sources clearly do not. The claim that gamergate is about "ethics in videogame journalism", for example, has been extensively reviewed and found to be entirely bogus. The article as it is, describes events according to the consensus of reliable independent sources. These sources make due note of the fact that unreliable partisan sources state the matter differently. It would be entirely wrong of us to go against that, and I think it is unlikely that we would do so given the amount of coverage in the mainstream whihc fingers this squarely as an issue of over-entitled abusive misogynists. Guy (Help!) 00:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The Apollo program has a fairly popular conspiracy theory attached to it. That's also commented on by serious sources. But as a bogus notion, naturally. So we don't begin the Apollo program article by "describing" it as both a space program and a massive hoax. The situation here is fairly similar.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You are saying that there is a media consensus, but what happens when media is biased? What happens when all the reliable sources you mention is either factually wrong or just opinions? I am not disputing the existence of abuse and threats on the GG side. But the movement did not started just to explicitly abuse and threaten female game developers or critics. There is substantial evidence that Pro Gamergate people are concerned with the alleged collusion within game developers and journalists, there is evidence of them trying to sensor people who tried to voice these concerns. Maybe the majority of the Gamergate movement has nothing to do with threats and abuse at all. There are certainly considerable people who condemn threats and abuse within GG. Many in GG believe that, those commenters are undermining their real goal and they despise them. They are the ones creating patrols to watch and report those kind of comments. You say those views are fringe, that is not true either, while there are not much reliable source for them, these views are held by a significant amount of people, which is why #gamergate is still alive.

But granted, we can't add those to the article, because they were not covered by reliable sources. We are bound by the data we can collect from reliable sources to construct this article as neutral as we can. What we can do, and I think what we should do, is to do our best to reflect the both with what Reliable source we can find, not follow the consensus of media! Of course we must state that there is a consensus in the media, but we don't have to be a part of this consensus. But If we have a guardian article that defines Gamergate as: "... a grassroots campaign broadly targeting alleged corruption in games journalism and perceived feminist influence in the videogame industry. " It should be added to the lead, as the definition of pro gamergaters coincide with it. Again, no one is saying we should exclude the sexism and abuse part which is why the subject is notable for, only that we should state the definition of the movement as they were perceived by their members. 78.174.219.180 (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Strongly agree with the above. I'd point to Jimbo's comment on the matter (which I sincerely hope I'm not misconstruing): "Wales’ advice for Gamergate supporters who wanted to change the Wikipedia article was to be constructive, and present a vision for the article which they wanted to read rather than engage in a war with feminist editors who were trying to maintain their vision."

I feel that this is exactly what we're trying to do here. We're not trying to erase the currently-dominant narrative in the article, merely to present the alternative. The alternative is covered by reliable sources, even if the coverage of the pro-GamerGate narrative is lesser in quantity than that driven by the very media GamerGate is focused on (this should be unsurprising to anyone). The fact that primary sources are allowed (with Kotaku and Polygon prominently displayed throughout the reference section), but Breitbart is not (because "they make stuff up") is, in my view, a sign of a bias where some blatantly POV sources are OK, but some sources which are not quite as directly linked to the subject are not, seemingly because they do not fit the narrative desired by the now-banned editors.

I think the issue at hand is simple. We need a lead that accurately represents both sides of the story. We currently don't have one, and that's due to cherry-picking of sources. This is setting a dangerous precedent, and one that's clearly currently being combatted. What we should be discussing is how to achieve neutrality in this article in a way that does both sides justice, not whether this should be done. Apples grow on pines (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Since the lede is a summary of the article, perhaps it would be more productive to first get your proposed changes into the body then worry about adding it to the lede. — Strongjam (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that they're already there, at least to some extent. Apples grow on pines (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(Further to that, I would note that this section does need some WP:NPOV editing, but I think it's of lesser significance than the complete erasure of the other side in the lead) Apples grow on pines (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The very first thing the article says about gamergate is going to be that it's notable because of the sexist and misogynistic attacks. The lede sentence should say as soon as possible why the subject is notable. It shouldn't start with a frankly fringe position. — Strongjam (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, nearly all of the ledes's second paragraph is dedicated to the "alleged corruption in games journalism and perceived feminist influence" position, and how it is overwhelmingly perceived by the sources.GreggHamster (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

{od}@Apples grow on pines:I don't think any one source should have a single quote picked out of it, against a large number of other sources, to change the very first sentence of the article. That being said, would you mind linking the Guardian article you are referring to? I thought I was familiar with those sources, and I've gone through each of them, but am unable to locate your quote. Thanks. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Addition: Some people are making a false equivalency by comparing the things like Appollo landing conspiracy theories which there is scientific proof to debunk, with this controversy which is mostly consists of opinions and allegations that may or may not be true. Furthermore, to use same example, Appollo landing wasn't an event to debunk conspiracy theories, gamergate on the other hand was started by what you call "fringe" allegations and concerns, and those concerns and allegations about ethics in gaming journalism was why the sexist comments and threats was made in the first place. In this article they are very relevant to the core of this issue, and though there are not much reliable source for them, In my opinion they should be included. 78.174.219.180 (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Note: Specifics please, sources and proposed edits; this section has become just a Soapbox. Dreadstar ☥ 02:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I still feel that my proposed edit has merit, subject to swapping the reference from gamergate.me to the Guardian article mentioned. Apples grow on pines (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant to my point. Dreadstar ☥ 02:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I, uh... okay. If a specific proposed edit with specific sources is not specific enough, then what would be? Should I write it down here instead of linking it? Or are you saying that, despite there still being an active discussion of this edit, we should simply ignore it?

You know what, nevermind. How's this for an edited lead:

GamerGate, according to its opponents (the majority of observers), is a controversy related to sexism in video game culture. Its supporters claim that it is instead a consumer boycott in response to excessive politicisation of gaming media, as well as concerns about ethical misconduct of video games journalists. It garnered significant public attention [...]

Apples grow on pines (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

References

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.

Altennamm: lede change

I was reverted for not discussing first. My bad. Please comment on my (reverted) version.

My points:

• No need for listing the names of the publishers of opinions in the lede; this is article summary, and this is encyclopedia: what only matters is that sources are reliable; besides, listing publishers instead of authors seems unfair to me. Also, publishers may publish views from both sides of the fence, and it is incorrect to attribute views to publishers, rather than to authors.
• After reading the text it occurred to me that the following observation is important to understanding why Gamergate has so many supporters: clearly not all of them are trolls. Some people genuinely (may be confusingly) thought that they may discuss "ethical issues", whatever, but they underestimated the power of trolls. We see this everywhere where comments to controversial posts are unmoderated or unregistered. Therefore I added the following piece, from article text itself:
  • Some commentators have argued that the Gamergate hashtag had the potential to raise important issues in gaming journalism, but that the wave of misogynistic harassment and abuse associated with the hashtag had poisoned the well, making it impossible to separate honest criticism from sexist trolling.

Of course, this may be shortened, but IMO an important explanation why shit hit the fan. (And expands the point about "leaderless, amorphous") -M.Altenmann >t 01:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. for the reverting editor, please be so kind and revise edits one by one rather than reverting in one button hit. My second edit was fixing an inaccuracy in quoting the source, easily verified. Please restore. -M.Altenmann >t 01:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

These are reasonable concerns, but I'm not sure we should be raising the potential of the gamergate hashtag in the lede- I believe we already mention its inability to converse honestly about actual ethical issues in the lede as part of the 'commentators' sentence at the end. We previously had a larger explanation of 'unrelated to actual issues of ethics in the industry' which I shortened to be more succinct. Does that need to be explored further in the lede? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Re "does that need" - IMO yes it does. IMO a significant reason for the spectacular failure to reach the allegedly intended goal was the level of trollnoise which prevented reasonable people from joining the discussion. The lede is quite short and IMO my addition is non-redundant (although may be shortened. (And I saved some space by kicking out the namelist :-)) -M.Altenmann >t 02:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

In relation to actual article content, I believe the current wording about ethics concerns is generous as it is. For all intents and purposes, it's a sideshow.

Peter ^Isotalo 02:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Pardon, I was not writing not so about ethics concerns, but about the reasons why discussion about possibly valid (at least discussable) concerns flopped spectacularly, i.e., the reasons why it became a sideshow. -M.Altenmann >t 02:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Once again, the section # What the larger issue has been, and discussion needed on that clearly shows that the lede needs to include the opinion (documented in article) that the "original" GG movement allowed the well to be poisoned and lost control over any useful discussion they intended (an lost control over "membership"). -M.Altenmann >t 17:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No. 2

Some of the people using the hashtag have said that their goal is <...> to end the acknowledgement of social issues in video game reviews

IMO a weird phrasing (or my poor command of English?). Can anybody point to the article text which is summarized by this phrase? -M.Altenmann >t 02:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Part of the Debate over ethics allegations section I think. Mostly the first paragraph and first bit of the second where it talks about culture war. — Strongjam (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I thought so at first. However I fail to see how the phrase

their movement is about ethical concerns revolving around the close relationships between journalists and developers, reviewers acknowledging social issues, and private conversations occurring between journalists

can be summarized as "to end the acknowledgement". Either the article must explain how they struggled to "end the ack" or the lede restated. -M.Altenmann >t 02:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The article does explain this in the "Debate over ethics allegations" section with many specific examples and sources speaking to this detail. Emarkcd (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Strongjam have already pointed me at this section. And I re-read it three times. I challenge you to provide the statement which supports the clam that "<the GG community> have said that their goal is to end the acknowledgement of social issues". -M.Altenmann >t 18:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Generally agree, the statement isn't wrong, but it's not really addressed very well in the body. We should probably fix the body. One of the sources for this would be "The battle of Gamergate and the future of video games". The relevant passage "One of Gamergate’s commonly cited examples of an ethical breach in journalism is an October review of Bayonetta 2 by Arthur Gies for Polygon. In Gamergate’s extensive dossier on gaming journalism, released in November, the Polygon review is among the very first cited as an example of the kind of game review the movement as a whole is objecting to. The problem? Gies gave the game a 7.5 out of 10 mainly because he felt its rampant and notorious sexual objectification of women detracted from his enjoyment of it.". The whole GG goal of "objective" reviews is something that we probably aren't covering very well at the moment. — Strongjam (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Funny how we have reached for the same source. However a more succinct formulation is slightly below in this source: "Instead of seeing more inclusive stances by reviewers as exercises of personal conscience, Gamergate proponents see them instead as an onslaught of political correctness. IMO this PC scarecrow is the essence and must be added both in the body and in the lede. -M.Altenmann >t 18:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Definitely agree. If you want to take a shot at it I'd support it being in the article. — Strongjam (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it in any of the sources listed for the section where it was added; and while it's mentioned there, I'd be leery of giving it too much prominence in the lead, since the term means different things to different people. That's part of why it goes with the somewhat vague 'ideological opponents' at the moment -- it is hard to pin down exactly what they mean by 'social justice warriors', and most of the sources we have comment on this difficulty (the general description seems to be more about fighting against feminism and progressivism, but the latter is also hard to define, and a few sources note that the people they've spoken to in GamerGate say that they are fighting eg. the "bad kind" of those things, again without clear definitions of what that means -- see eg. Singal's comment about how they corrected him to say that they were opposed to '3rd wave radfem' feminism, which I suspect would be difficult to pin down in turn.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding to the above, discussion from the sources for that section about what GamerGate opposes:

• Here: "Gamergate is now a stew of tautological arguments, powerless hashtags, and bruised egos. I suspect the banner and the members that rally beneath it will hold together. I know whenever a whiff of social progressivism appears in a video game review, the flag will be raised."
• Here: "To Gamergate denizens, the gaming press is unethical because it acknowledges social issues in video games. When Gamergate proponents claim a concern for “ethics in journalism,” this is nearly always what they are talking about."
• Here: "They appear to be loosely coordinated online activists whose main talking point, writes Jesse Singal for New York Magazine, is “how mad and frustrated they were that progressive politics and feminism were impinging on gaming, which they saw as an area they had enjoyed, free of politics, forever.”"

Now that I look, the second one does mention political correctness in passing, yeah. But my feeling is that there's a lot more coverage of the "opposed to discussion of social issues (especially anything progressive)" than there is of that, and that it's hazardous to try and define who they consider their ideological opponents too precisely in the lead beyond that. The key point, though, is that what they mean by ethics is generally a claim that the politics of their ideological opponents (generally meaning progressivism, feminism, and what can loosely be grouped under social justice) are being pushed in videogame reviews via an unethical conspiracy. I feel that conveying that is more important than the somewhat difficult task of trying to nail down exactly what their enemies are in more detail. --Aquillion (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

To continue the issue further, I don't see the coverage of GG's buzzword 'SJW' in wikipedia. I added it into the lede (with a ref which significantly discusses it), but there are plenty of other sources, unfortunately I have no more time for this today, bye. -M.Altenmann >t 19:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Mass Shooting Threat

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

---

I'm not sure exactly why this was removed- it's an incredibly noteworthy example of the death threats being used against gamergates targets. Is it unsuitable for use in the lede? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Noticed that and was going to put it back in. Think it just got lost in the shuffle. — Strongjam (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually there have been other kinds of threats, such as rape or injury, some pretty elaborate. Do we really need list them all in the article summary? I'd say many women would find rape threats more realistic and more ominous. -M.Altenmann >t 02:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

If you can source a noteworthy threat you're welcome to include it- the mass shooting threat is noteworthy because I believe it caused a scheduled speaking appearance to be cancelled. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that particular threat received a considerable amount of press. If there's consensus to keep it out, I'm fine with that. But it seems like it's probably the single most notable threat press wise. — Strongjam (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, threats or rape were quite mediaworthy, and I added it. But once again, this is article summary. The article is full of scandalous stuff; do we need to put stuff in the intro judging by the amount of noise, or judging how the lede summarizes the article? -M.Altenmann >t 02:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the amount of media attention it's gathered, it's a very notable part of the controversy. Yes, I do believe the lede should include it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The mass shooting also has to go in the lead because it was when the controversy got most of its coverage; it's one of the most noteworthy events related to the article's topic and one of the main reasons people might come here. --Aquillion (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

OK. Understood. No objections. -M.Altenmann >t 03:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

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

No template warning in article?

being completely new to the topic and just recently having heard and read about it and having now read the article itself: is seems that there should *at least* be a "disputed" or "npov" template shown on the article page itself to caution unsuspecting readers to take everything they read with a grain of salt, no?--109.193.92.201 (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The way it is? I'd agree... I did some reading on this in the news, came here just now, and was kind of startled and puzzled. Though, to be honest, experience told me to expect much more vitriol on the talkpage :). Must say I'm pleasantly surprised by the general maturity of the discourse, seems we managed to keep this in perspective. -- Director (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles do not have disclaimers beyond the Wikipedia:General disclaimer. There is a {{POV}} template, but anyone wanting to add it to the article should read and follow the instructions for how to use it. We've had people use it disruptively in the past. It's not intended to warn readers. Instead it's to invite other editors to discuss a specific and actionable WP:NPOV issue that the tagger has found. If it is added to the article and it's not clear what the NPOV issue that the editor who added is addressing then it can be removed by any other editor. — Strongjam (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I do think that a {{POV}} template would be appropriate, both as a means to inviting editors and an indication that the article is very much a work in progress. Similar templates are in use in much less controversial subjects (e.g. Sexism), so it would not be an unprecedented move. Apples grow on pines (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As Strongjam said above - please read the rules for NPOV tagging. If you think it should be added, you should "point out specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag." GreggHamster (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to follow the instructions is free to add it, but I will remove any "drive-by" tagging of the article. Editors who add it should be add a talk page section to discuss what their specific POV issue is. Absent that discussion the tag instructions say it may be removed. — Strongjam (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above (Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Lead_edits_to_accurately_reflect_both_sides_of_the_controversy) both identifies an issue and provides sources to back it up. In the absence of a clear resolution of the issue, a tag should be added to invite more editors to seek a rational one. Apples grow on pines (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it. That discussion doesn't describe what our policies POV issue; they're saying "this article isn't presenting both sides", which isn't part of our policies (in fact, presenting 'both sides' in a way that gives one more weight than it has in reliable sources is a violation of WP:NPOV in that it gives that opinion WP:UNDUE weight.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit Proposal

Partially agreed with (talk) I believe the first sentence should remain the same, I propose this:

Gamergate is a controversy related to sexism in video game culture. The movement started as a consumer revolt in response to excessive politicization of gaming media, as well as concerns about ethical misconduct of video games journalists. It garnered significant public attention after August 2014 when sexist and misogynistic attacks were targeting a number of women within the video game industry. It garnered significant public attention after August 2014 when sexist and misogynistic attacks were targeting a number of women within the video game industry.

That way we can first tell what it is famous for, than the chronological account of the events as first the movement started with concerns about ethics and that led to abuses and threats. The current version feels like the movement just started for the explicit purpose of abusing people. 78.174.219.180 (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Now what happened? I just hit save and the discussion is closed what should I do with it? Can someone guide me I did not intended to modify closed discussion for it wasn't closed when I hit the save. 78.174.219.180 (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussing other editors on article talk pages is inappropriate per WP:TPNO, WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Instead, WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE should be followed. Dreadstar ☥ 03:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That sounds like a reasonable edit. An alternative of mine, which has now been sneakily added to the "closed" discussion by User:Dreadstar (Please don't do that. We all need to remain civil), can be viewed below:

GamerGate, according to its opponents (the majority of observers), is a controversy related to sexism in video game culture. Its supporters claim that it is instead a consumer boycott in response to excessive politicisation of gaming media, as well as concerns about ethical misconduct of video games journalists. It garnered significant public attention [...]

Both appear to accurately resolve the issue at hand.Apples grow on pines (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Edited, as I see it was poorly constructed because I was too hasty and I am new to this, so sorry about it.

Gamergate is a controversy related to sexism in video game culture. The movement started as a consumer revolt in response to allegations of excessive politicization of gaming media, as well as concerns about ethical misconduct of video games journalists. It garnered significant public attention after August 2014 when sexist and misogynistic attacks were targeting a number of women within the video game industry. 78.174.219.180 (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe you are going to have a hard time finding editors who agree that the specific nuances of the wording in that one article are a basis for going against the consensus and wording in nearly every other reliable source, including every other source from The Guardian. Particularly to make a change in the lead, to the very first sentence. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, let me kind of rephrase: Why do you think the nuances of the wording there is worth going against the weight of the other sources? AtomsOrSystems (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. If we're going to write a lede from one source I can write a doozy of one from an academic paper, much more reliable then that rather clumsy Guardian piece. I won't though because I know it will never get consensus. Also, "according to its opponents (the majority of observers)" seems trying to place doubt in the readers mind about our sources, and it's original research. Who says they are GG's opponents? From source I missed it. — Strongjam (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe I made my case above in the closed discussion, it was a lengthily post, and since it was closed, I do not want to move it here. I believe it would be best if you read it from there. In any case I am hoping this change would resolve the neutrality issues in the lead as I see it. 78.174.219.180 (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Strongjam: "Who says they are GG's opponents?" - The sources themselves say that. Have a look through the references. "A horde of digital saboteurs", "all it's done is ruined lives", "the sexist crusade", "misogynist movement blighting the industry". The phrasing of the titles alone should be sufficient evidence.

"Also, 'according to its opponents (the majority of observers)" seems trying to place doubt in the readers mind about our sources' - Hmm. My intention was the opposite. I was trying to give it more weight by explicitly pointing out that the majority are opponents. I suppose the bit in parentheses can be omitted. Apples grow on pines (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, never saw that bit there in the source. Still I think this is way more weight then is due this source. — Strongjam (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: Would the content be all right if it had more sources? There are several already in the article (Gamergate_controversy#Debate_over_ethics_allegations), and I was led to believe that the lead should not be too reference-heavy. Apples grow on pines (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(Some of the sources already in the article, for reference: [2][3][4]) Apples grow on pines (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, if you tried to support your proposed wording with those sources, I think it would look like cherrypicking. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The lede is just a summary of the article itself, and the article is based on what reliable sources say, so really you can say the lede is a summary of the things that reliable sources say. And yes, content can change with additional sources: in fact, we weight the article proportionally around what the sources say, so when we say "the ethics angle has been debunked" it's because that's what most reliable sources say. If you found enough reliable sources to weight the article in the other direction, we would change it, but that's very unlikely as most media is not on the side of Gamergate. Gamergate supporters can call them opponents, but that's not going to change our own community consensus to write articles based on reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

AtomsOrSystems, you said "going against the consensus and wording in nearly every other reliable source, including every other source from The Guardian." is there any source disputes that the gamergate started as My proposal stated it was? I believe even the most critical ones doesn't say that it was not started as a consumer revolt. This may be sounding like I am trying to ask for a negative proof, but I assure you it's not. I believe the reason why the majority of the reliable sources didn't include this information per their bias towards the issue, they deemed it unimportant. And I think including that bit would improve the article towards neutrality.(Btw, I am the ip user, just signed up to wiki) BurzumDraud (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

AtomsOrSystems, could you elaborate on how it would be cherrypicking? This trend is prevalent throughout most sources, I merely pointed out the first few I came across. It is not a controversial statement that GamerGate started as a consumer revolt/boycott, or that current supporters still believe that this is the case. Apples grow on pines (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Few reliable sources take the "consumer revolt" or "ethics in journalism" angles seriously. The vast majority say that Gamergate started as a harassment campaign and moved on to other coordinated campaigns as PR or a smokescreen. Some do mention Gamergate supporters' opinions, but it's nearly always to refute them. I don't doubt that some or many supporters believe in "consume revolt" and "ethic in journalism", but stating that Gamergate is about those things is, indeed, a controversial statement not supported by most sources. Woodroar (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Woodroar: We don't want to insert claims about what the movement is, merely point out that there exists a sub-section of reliable sources which acknowledge the pro-GG side. I specifically focused on what the members believe, rather than what is the case. When we discuss the Flat Earth Theory, we both point out that the theory is currently known to be wrong and that the theory has to do with the Earth being flat. Here, however, we only focus on why GamerGate is seen as wrong, but we neglect to elaborate on how it originated, or what its mission statement is. The mission statement (regardless of the members' adherence to it) is clear and widely confirmed by reliable sources. The article makes numerous references to it as well, with citations. As the lead is supposed to represent the content of the article, this fact needs to be reflected. Apples grow on pines (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the mission statement is confirmed by reliable sources, but rather the mission statement is sometimes mentioned only to be debunked. I know that, according to you, the two sides are roughly Harassment versus Ethics, but reliable sources portray it as Harassment versus Not-About-Ethics (in sources that don't bother to mention your mission statement) or Says-Ethics-But-Not-About-Ethics (in sources that do). I look at it somewhat like our article on 419 scams: there are also two sides, Scammed versus Scammers. I'm sure the scammers would prefer it was balanced as Soon-to-be-Rich versus Actual-Legitimate-Government-Officials, but we have no obligation to do that when reliable sources certainly don't. Now I don't mean to compare Gamergate to a scam—I'm sure there are plenty of good people who believe in the message, and I mean that—only to point out by analogy that the expressed motives of Gamergate supporters are largely disregarded in reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Woodroar, I was reluctant to move this here, but I think the closing of the previous discussion made the reasons of my objections obscure and I think my argument should be heard :

You are saying that there is a media consensus, but what happens when media is biased? What happens when all the reliable sources you mention is either factually wrong or just opinions? I am not disputing the existence of abuse and threats on the GG side. But the movement did not started just to explicitly abuse and threaten female game developers or critics. There is substantial evidence that Pro Gamergate people are concerned with the alleged collusion within game developers and journalists, there is evidence of them trying to sensor people who tried to voice these concerns. Maybe the majority of the Gamergate movement has nothing to do with threats and abuse at all. There are certainly considerable people who condemn threats and abuse within GG. Many in GG believe that, those commenters are undermining their real goal and they despise them. They are the ones creating patrols to watch and report those kind of comments. You say those views are fringe, that is not true either, while there are not much reliable source for them, these views are held by a significant amount of people, which is why #gamergate is still alive.

But granted, we can't add those to the article, because they were not covered by reliable sources. We are bound by the data we can collect from reliable sources to construct this article as neutral as we can. What we can do, and I think what we should do, is to do our best to reflect the both with what Reliable source we can find, not follow the consensus of media! Of course we must state that there is a consensus in the media, but we don't have to be a part of this consensus. But If we have a guardian article that defines Gamergate as: "... a grassroots campaign broadly targeting alleged corruption in games journalism and perceived feminist influence in the videogame industry. " It should be added to the lead, as the definition of pro gamergaters coincide with it. Again, no one is saying we should exclude the sexism and abuse part which is why the subject is notable for, only that we should state the definition of the movement as they were perceived by their members.

In light of these arguments, I repeat my proposal, hoping that it would answer and explain my misgivings to the current lead.BurzumDraud (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia's policy is that our articles are governed by reliable sources; and this includes questions like "what is this movement about" -- if a blogger says "I am part of this movement, and I say it is this!", and reliable sources say "we have analyzed the movement, and it is about that!", we have to go with the reliable sources. Wikipedia is not generally the place to start fighting back against what you feel to be an inaccurate media consensus, because ultimately it's just an encyclopedia and is only intended to give people an at-a-glance rundown of what the most historically reliable sources have to say about the topic. And, as I mentioned above, my feeling is that your concerns here are misplaced -- you're saying you feel we need to present 'both sides', but that isn't how WP:NPOV works. We present opinions according to how they are reflected in WP:RS, avoiding paying too much attention to things that are WP:FRINGE or which would give relatively minor viewpoints WP:UNDUE weight. As a final point, I would point out that there are really far more than two sides here -- there's a wide variety of different descriptions about Gamergate, what it means, who is involved, what various people want, and so on. Our responsibility as an encyclopedia is to go over reliable sources that have covered this controversy and report on what they've found, not to arbitrarily decide that one 'side' is accurately describing GamerGate and to put them in opposition to a nebulous 'media'. I disagree, basically, with your implicit assertion that there is a clear definition of what Gamergate is and what it wants "in its own words" which we are overlooking -- I feel that Singal's piece is probably the closest we can get in terms of thorough coverage of Gamergate's goals and desires (and it generally reflects what people have said on all sides since, with some differentiation in terms of who they feel shot first and which side they weigh in on the culture war), but even it is clearly limited by the wide variety of voices saying different things at different times. --Aquillion (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

But there are reliable sources that states what I proposed. I don't think my proposal is in any shape contradicts with the majority of the reliable sources. The guardian article can be used as a reliable source,

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/technology/confused-gamergate-heres-simple-guide-4536829 this article can also be used to support my proposal. This quote: "It's an angry, messy online movement that is nominally a backlash against perceived breaches of journalistic integrity in video games journalism. But the grievances about ethics in journalism have been overshadowed by a group of misogynistic men who have threatened women with rape and death threats." It's a bit dismissive on ethics, but along the same lines as mine. Even at Gawker, Gamergate defined as:

"#GamerGate" is an online movement ostensibly concerned with ethics in game journalism and with protecting the "gamer" identity. " Yes the sources are saying this is just a cover, but as I said sources are demonstrably (not by wiki standards) biased. my proposal doesn't change much, only tells that it was started because of the allegations of ethical misconduct, nor does it misrepresents the reliable sources BurzumDraud (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(I intended this as a response to your statements above, but it works just as well here.) I understand that Gamergate supporters believe the media to be biased, but—and I'll be frank here—it's unreasonable to expect us to simply throw out reporting from the Christian Science Monitor, the Telegraph, the New Yorker, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and so on, simply because you don't believe they characterize the movement correctly. These are award-winning publications and unaffiliated with games journalism. Ironically, they're the types of sources that have had ethical standards for decades, and when they say, for example, that claimed ethical breaches aren't actually ethical breaches at all, they know what they're talking about. I have personally lurked Reddit, 8chan, and 4chan (at the beginning) and seen evidence of misogyny, sexism, etc., with virtually everyone supporting it. (Obviously, it's nothing that counts as a reliable source, and even repeating it here is probably actionable as a WP:BLP violation.) I can only assume that reporters have done the same. So I don't wonder why they don't write about Gamergate supporters who flag objectionable material on social media, because they probably see those individuals as working PR. And that's a point that reliable sources make again and again: it's all individuals, because Gamergate supporters refuse to organize. So it's impossible to say something that, as you put it, "the definition of pro gamergaters coincide with it", because if there is a collective opinion within Gamergate supporters, there is no way for us or anyone to gauge that consensus. Woodroar (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm giving some leeway here, but a lot of this is straying into the realm of original research and WP:NOTFORUM. Either focus on actual BLP Compliant reliable sources, and specific content changes or leave this alone. Dreadstar ☥ 05:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• The principal issue here is quote-mining. Sure, we can find a few commentaries that err slightly on the side of supporting the view that Gamergate was at least a little bit about ethics in videogame journalism, but the majority of sources that have actually looked into the claim, conclude that this claim is without merit. It's like quoting lone climate change holdouts in the lede of the article on climate change: it gives undue weight to a minoirty view. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Conflation of #Gamergate with previous hashtags

One major problem with this article is the conflation of #gamergate with what went before it.

According to a careful reading of the material in Forbes, Gamergate began as outburst of anger against certain web sites for publishing a set of articles known as the "Gamers are Dead" articles.

This article badly conflates Gamergate with what came before it.

While there may be significant overlap among these things, Gamergate itself was a reaction to the "gamers are dead" articles which attacked the audience of the websites that published them. The websites reacted with more attacks, and the fight continued and broadened, but this article should start with the reaction to the articles. .

It's fine that we give background if we must about the Zoe Quinn or Sarkeesian stuff, but there is no evidence or rational reason to believe that such things are what Gamergate was really about because the gamergate hashtag was about the "Gamers are Dead" articles. Chrisrus (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That's untrue. The #GamerGate hashtag was first tweeted a day before the first of the "Gamers are dead" articles (which were written, generally, in response to the earlier Quinnspiracy controversies and related issues, like the harassment of Sarkeesian.) The resulting conflict may have caused GamerGate to gain more steam, but it couldn't have been the cause of the hashtag. As our article says: "The hashtag 'Gamergate' was first used by actor Adam Baldwin in a tweet with links to two videos critical of Quinn" --Aquillion (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Aquillion is correct (well, subject to timezones; in UTC they were posted on the same date, but Baldwin's tweet still clearly came before the articles). Please see the original tweet ([5]) and the first article in the series ([6]) Apples grow on pines (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, the hashtag may have started a day before, but gamergate movement first took off as a reaction to those articles so please lets give that the approprate amount of weight because the main focus of gamergate was to organize a consumer boycott of those websites that published them and this article does not make that clear. Chrisrus (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you have to support the claim that gamergate became popular as a response to these articles? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Not to repeat myself, but I think it's important - a lot of this is straying into the realm of original research and WP:NOTFORUM. Either focus on actual BLP Compliant reliable sources, and specific content changes or leave this alone. Dreadstar ☥ 05:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• As much as I agree with Chrisrus, I'm not sure you can find any reliable source to support that claim. If it's worth anything, I found a screencap of Topsy'sanalitics of #GamerGate hashtag but I doubt it could pass as a reliable source. 164.127.60.102 (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing lede

During my brief work on this article (which I joined answering the Agbcom call for more eyeballs) I donticed several cases of changing the article lede which were not supported by article text.

It appears to me that the editors are summarizing their understanding of the topic rather than the article content. I was not familiar with the subject and for me it is difficult to judge whether their understanding is correct, but I can detect a mismatch of a lede and body.

I understand that a mismatch can happen when something rephrased in the article without the corresponding fix in the lede, e.g. as a result of edit conflict.

I would like everybody to remind keeping lede and body in sync, both during editing body and lede. I dont't know if there is any way to ensure this in any (semi-) automatic way.

A part of the problem IMO is that the lede appears to be a summary of the topic rather than the article , i.e. without direct match between their structures. IMO this mismatch encourages editing the lede independently of the body. -M.Altenmann >t 16:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, it reads to me like it's being used as the context in which the rest of the article should be read instead of a summary of the article. What do you think the best solution would be? I think we might need to restructure either the lede, the article, or both (personally, I think we should restructure both). Kaciemonster (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes Level 2 or full protection?

There is currently a discussion at Arbitration Enforcement with respect to the use of PC2 on this article. While some express the thought that the use of PC2 is outside of policy (technically it is, but it's entirely reasonable to think that, taken to a community discussion per usual process, an exception would be made), I have different concerns. To repeat my words at the other discussion: While it may restrict some accounts from directly editing the article, we already know that editors who hold the necessary permissions have been sanctioned for their actions by Arbcom, community sanctions, or other processes in relation to this topic area. It also invites any editor with the necessary permission to review the edit and accept it, whether or not they have fully reviewed the talk page for consensus, or are aware of the subtle and creeping nature of some of the changes that have been proposed. Remember that essentially only vandalism or obvious BLP violations can be flat-out rejected, under the pending changes policy; the vast majority of edits being proposed through PC should actually be accepted. It is outside of our organizational expectations that pending changes reviewers should check for consensus on talk pages, or evaluate the quality of any edit they are reviewing; at the same time, we should not be putting pending changes reviewers in the position of unintentionally adding subtle or difficult-to-identify BLP violations or other contentious material to the article.

I would actually prefer seeing full protection of the article over PC2, so that it does retain the high level of control that is probably needed at this point; PC2 just isn't strong enough, because it still allows a lot of editors to make modifications without requiring consensus, and puts any reviewer who hasn't closely been following this article in a very difficult position. Risker (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to agree that full protection would be best. The article has seen some amount of untenable changes under PC2, and the trend I'm seeing is an increase in these. Full protection would be best to prevent degradation of the article's quality. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth:If you have comments that have not yet been addressed by others, then I suggest you comment at WP:AE before the appeal closes. --Obsidi (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Although it's a bit late, my honest opinion is that it makes very little difference. The article is seeing enough activity, in terms of edits from established users, that most pending changes seem to go live very quickly; I don't think it would hurt anything to drop it to PC1, but it isn't a big deal either way. I don't feel that full protection is necessary, though -- despite the large number of edits, the article is actually comparatively stable overall, in that a lot of the changes at this point are over minor wording concerns. --Aquillion (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that full protection would probably be best for the time being. It seems difficult to keep the article in any state of stability otherwise. MoreTomorrow (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Referencing Claims

We need references for the first couple paragraphs. There are great claims being made that need citation. I am too bias to do it myself and I realize it, so please, cite all sources. (posted by Starius 16:52, February 1, 2015‎)

Please be more specific. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

If you mean the introductory section, usually know as the lead, references aren't required. It's a summary of the entire article, which is in itself heavily referenced. This is being discussed a few sections above under #Citations in the Lede.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Game media is corrupt says GamerGate, GamerGate hates women says media, Gamergate hates women because the media says so, says Wikipedia, just look at all the references to the media, so it must be true. This article is a complete disaster. I reads like an article on Trotsky if it had been written by Stalinist and only referenced Stalinist sources.212.130.116.215 (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate does not hate women, Gamergate hates feminists. Your statement is emotional and a bit confused. Yes, the article may be not the best. Minutes ago I myself fixed something confusing in it, after discussing here. You too, are welcome to indicate at particular article text you think is incorrect, and we can figure out a clarification. This is how wikipedia community works. -M.Altenmann >t 20:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

So the reason Christina Hoff Sommers supports GG, is because she hates herself... or something?212.130.116.215 (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Many waves of feminism. What you are looking for is the (somewhat minor camp) debate between Equity and gender feminism. Hoff Sommers hates feminists of a particular ilk, and has segregated herself from common feminism for the last 20 years. Koncorde (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

We're limited to including information from reliable sources. What's more, that's really the only appropriate thing to do. If you have sources you think are reliable, that you would like to see included in the article, you're welcome to bring them here to the talk page to be considered. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You must be joking. 168 references, not a single one from Breitbart but lots of reference to Gawker despite them being part of the conflict.212.130.116.215 (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart was discussed at length here before. For some reason they were not considered reliable. Shii (tock) 19:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

But Kotaku is? That's like using NAMBLA as a trustworthy reference in an article on pedophilia.212.130.116.215 (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It is fairly clear that most of the sources being used in this article are 'involved' in the dispute and therefore are not credible. This includes 'major' news sites like the Guardian. Until that is accepted it is not possible for this article to match up with the public perception of 'GamerGate Controversy' 189.236.226.241 (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous user, this is not a new area of discussion, so general complaints aren't really that helpful. Please provide specific suggestions for sources you believe should be used.

And please drop the political hyperboles. Stick to the facts.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

And here's a link to the talkpage archives[7] that shows how extensively Breitbart as a reliable source has already been discussed.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Peter, I recommend the editors discuss the problem again; because the editors have failed to reach a conclusion in line with acceptable (never mind best) practices as apply to this article. You can use both sources, which would be acceptable but not ideal. Best practices would be to use uninvolved or quotes assigned to individuals rather than referencing involved sources as being in any way factual. 189.236.226.241 (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No, "best practices" would be to proceed according to WP:RS. You can search the archives of this talk page for "breitbart" for further discussion on this point. drseudo (t) 22:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim. In this case, where the Guardian have thrown their reliability into the wind in relation to this Scandal including erroneously attacking the encylopedia, they have labelled themselves in relation to this topic to be lightweight. Therefore there is a need to review the bias of each individual source relating to this article as due diligence for the integrity and reputation of the project. 189.236.226.241 (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

If you search the archives for that, also, you will find significant discussion. To be blunt, one poorly fact-checked article doesn't invalidate a source's reliability. It certainly doesn't do it retrospectively. AtomsOrSystems (talk)

I should add, in addition to that, that the Guardian posted an update correcting their errors. WHich actually speaks rather well for their overall status as a reliable source. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as it says in WP:RS: "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections." No news source is expected to be totally accurate at all times (which is why, when something is controversial or disputed, it is better to find a large number of sources corroborating it), but higher-quality ones issue retractions or corrections when they make a mistake. As I recall, part of the reason why Breitbart is generally not considered a WP:RS is because it doesn't generally do so. Of course, a general reputation for accuracy is also important, but that is based on a source's overarching history rather than one event. --Aquillion (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The main reason Breitbart is not considered a RS is that Breitbart has no news gathering resources and appears to care little about accuracy. Even Fox generally don't quote Breitbart like they used to. It's a polemical source with an appalling record of error. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Really? And here I thought it was because Breitbart were the ones who revealed the existence of GamesJournoPro. Which you are desperately seeking to keep out of the article, since it blows a giant hole in the 'GG is about harassment' circus you got going.212.130.116.215 (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

See Q3 of the FAQ on the top of the page. — Strongjam (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Harassment credibility

Many instances of harassment cited throughout the article were never proven, or even suggested, to originate with GamerGate. This is a clear violation of NPOV and a clear attempt to create anti-GamerGate bias.2602:301:77AF:EAF0:FCD8:81D5:8383:127F (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have specific examples and reliable sources that would be helpful. — Strongjam (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

"threats of rape, and death threats" from the first paragraph is uncited, but citations elsewhere in the article clearly point that claim to various media sources which utterly fail to prove a link. The next words are "including a threat of a mass shooting at a public speaking event." The burden of proof is on the claimant and that claim is just false. There were threats, and she did cancel her appearance, but the threats came from a first-day twitter account that never used the word "gamergate".

This next one is weaker but I'm still listing it. Under the History section the phrase "As a result of these allegations, Quinn and her family were subjected to a virulent harassment campaign" strongly implies GamerGate as the source but again the cited material puts the word "GamerGate" next to allegations of harassment and lets the reader draw the inevitable conclusion.

Under "subsequent harassment" is another incident that was never actually tied to GamerGate: "leaking of her private information including her home address" Furthermore numerous instances of people on 8chan (an anonymous image board) posting multiple times from the same IP pretending to be different people and talking about harassment have been proven. In these cases one or another twitter account almost inevitably included screenshots of the alleged harassment and attempts at harassment. I have several pictures of the posts and tweets in question.

I know I'm as coherent as an inebriated monkey right now but I trust you get the gist.2602:301:77AF:EAF0:FCD8:81D5:8383:127F (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You need reliable sources to back all that up. All we do here at WP is collect what reliable sources say, Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of our core policies. And verifiability here does not mean you can look at the source and see that it's "proven" it just means that a reliable source has published it. — Strongjam (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that people accusing GamerGate of evildoing need to back up their claims with reliable sources. It shouldn't be in the article if it's not proven.2602:301:77AF:EAF0:FCD8:81D5:8383:127F (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Outside of the lede every single statement is sourced (and the lede is just summary of the article.) If you find a particular assertion that is not sourced, or you cannot find the statement in the given sources feel free to start a discussion with the specifics. — Strongjam (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The article has changed. A reliable source is not included for this new statement " These attacks were primarily performed under the Twitter hashtag #gamergate"2602:301:77AF:EAF0:FCD8:81D5:8383:127F (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The claim that attacks originating from Gamergate "including a threat of a mass shooting at a public speaking event. " is not cited. This is factually incorrect and the accuser bears the burden of proof.2602:301:77AF:EAF0:FCD8:81D5:8383:127F (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC

The inclusion of entire section on Quinn is only justified by the above-mentioned unproven accusations of harassment. If one includes extensive claims by Quinn shouldn't one include an equally long section containing equally well-proven claims of harassment against supporters of GamerGate? Should what the press chooses to cover really dictate the slant of the article? If you will say that the Quinn section doesn't bias the article will you say a section on someone who supports GamerGate also would not bias the article?2602:301:77AF:EAF0:FCD8:81D5:8383:127F (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

All the statements that you are questioning are amply cited in the article, which the introductory section is a summary of. You're obliged to read the entire article if you want to criticize it.

This thread seems to be mostly editorializing.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability not truth. We only can report what is said in reliable sources. Your beef is with the media not wikipedia. Though with the mass shooting incident don't we have the University report that there was no threat of a mass shooting? see link [8] Avono (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wording is poor I think, not "no threat" as in it didn't exist, but as in "we did a risk assessment of the threat, determined there was no danger". I don't think it's really needed, but if it's going to be in the article we need to be careful how we word it. There's no dispute that there was a threat issued. — Strongjam (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The claims I've disputed are not proven by any cited material. As for the shooting threat, as I said there was a threat. But it was never related to GamerGate. As for the soapboxing argument, how are my claims any less truthful by pointing out bias in only one direction? I don't have a "beef" except that this article is biased.2602:301:77AF:EAF0:FCD8:81D5:8383:127F (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

"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." Woodroar (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the second threat has been linked to GamerGate, but I propose not to mention the first one in this article, since there is no link to GamerGate and it's clearly written by some anti-feminist. Racuce (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me, having read the article, that there's actually a number of sources which support the idea that the threats are related to Gamergate. Giving it fresh eyes, this appears about as well-supported as anything. No Matter How Dark (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

In the future I shall be more careful before I make such claims. I don't like the "Verifiability not truth" policy but that complaint doesn't belong here. Thanks for providing the citation. I want to go down fighting about the other instances of bias but they are "verified" by Wikipedia standards, so I'll just look for an unrelated article to edit. Perhaps coffee or air filters. I do hope media bias changes over time. And again you have my apologies.2602:301:77AF:EAF0:FCD8:81D5:8383:127F (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2015

The first two paragraphs of the article are in serious need of citations.

24.137.236.145 (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs are called the lead (or lede), and are a summary of the article as a whole. Normally, they do not have citations (since the citations are throughout the body of the article). If there are specific claims you think are unsupported by the citations in the article, however, you should feel free to raise them here. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. This is the first time I've done this sort of thing. The problem with the lead is that it ties the harassment, alleged or otherwise, to sites such as Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan, yet few of the citations that I've seen provide evidence of any harrassment; and those that do, fail to tie it with the movement in any significant way. The uncertainty of the situation should be reflected in the lead to avoid skewing the entry, if nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.236.145 (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. Your concerns are a regular cause of discussion; if you search this talk page, you will find several discussions related to that. You're more than welcome to add your thoughts, if you like. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Questions about recent changes

Apologies if these are already being discussed above, it's hard to keep track of the discussion. Please move these to the appropriate section.192.249.47.186 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Question 1: Berkman

The Berkman citation seems to have been watered down from specifically accusing the movement of being a campaign against Quinn that morphed into a crusade involving abuse and harassment against women, to merely stating that the controversy is a debate about feminism, harassment, and media conspiracy. I can't identify the specific diff that made this change due to the section also being shuffled, so if anyone is clear on the reasoning for this change, can they please clarify?192.249.47.186 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The diff for the change. The discussion linked to in the edit summary is #Info in wrong section. — Strongjam (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit conflict] It looks like it was changed in this diff as a result of this brief discussion. It was suggested that if the quotation was left in the 'Political views' section it should be changed to something more relevant to politics. The alternative suggestion was to move the quotation to a different section. Instead, both things were done. We should revert the quotation since it's now in the 'Misogyny and antifeminism' section (which is what the original quotation was about). MoreTomorrow (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As one of the editors involved in that discussion, I agree it should be one or the other, and not both. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed the quotation we have per this discussion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Question 2: Newsweek

For the Newsweek citation, we've had ample discussion about this already, and even the editors who wanted to "thrash" the citation agreed that the message of the citation was that "GamerGate spends more time tweeting negatively at female game developers than at males or game journalists." Why are we now watering this down with "seems" and "suggests", when Newsweek's conclusion is clear?192.249.47.186 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Because Newsweek themselves used that exact language when they made those statements. It is direct quoting. Got it? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 22:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's possible to both directly quote a source and also misrepresent it. Is the quote representative of the conclusions the article made? Is the quote taken out of context? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I direct you to the discussion above at #Brandwatch elaboration. I have taken into account that another editor has suggested using the full sentence - ... "suggests that, contrary to its stated goal, GamerGate spends more time tweeting negatively at game developers than at game journalists—a fact Intel, Mercedes, and Adobe should have researched before they pulled ads from news sites". I think that represents the context well. It's just that it has not been implemented yet. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Question 3: Lede

"It garnered significant public attention after August 2014 when sexist and misogynistic attacks were targeting a number of women within the video game industry."

This phrasing, changed from "that came to public attention in August 2014 as a result of sexist and misogynistic attacks targeting a number of women in the video game industry", seems to have ommitted the crucial link that the attacks are accepted to have been committed by Gamergate, and the phrasing is just kind of awkward. It also omits that the harassment is really the only reason anyone outside of the chans is aware of the phenomenon -- it wasn't that the public already knew about them, and this was just a major event on their timeline. It is the entirety of what the public knows them for. I propose we change it back, as there seems to be no benefit to this phrasing.

"Prominent targets of the attacks include"

Changing from "primary" to "prominent" gives the connotation that the campaign is about harassing other people, the listed are just the famous ones. This is inaccurate and should be reverted.

"The harassment included the revealing of targeted women's private information (doxing), rape and death threats, including a threat of a mass shooting at a public speaking event."

This sentence is grammatically incorrect, unless it is ommitting the Oxford comma and the harassment is being claimed to include:

1. Doxing
2. Rape
3. Death threats including a threat of mass shooting.

To be fair, I don't believe anyone has actually accused Gamergaters of being rapists yet, so this should be reverted to the previous wording.

"Some of the people using the hashtag have said that their goal"

This was previously "Supporters of the movement", and appears to be a classic "No True Scotsman. Should be reverted.

"being the result of an unethical collusion"

This was previously "being the result of an unethical conspiracy". Can the changer please provide which source they are relying on for this? The sources, to me, illustrate that while gamergaters have made accusations of instances of collusion, they are claiming that the collusion is part of a broader conspiracy. Collusion also sounds kind of grammatically weird in this position.

So, proposed lede below. Thoughts?192.249.47.186 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate is a controversy related to sexism in video game culture that came to public attention in August 2014 as a result of sexist and misogynistic attacks targeting a number of women in the video game industry. The primary targets of the attacks were female game developers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu, and cultural critic, Anita Sarkeesian. These attacks were primarily performed under the Twitter hashtag #gamergate, at times coordinated in the online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan, and the harassment included the revealing of targeted women's private information (doxing) as well as threats of rape or murder, including a threat of a mass shooting at a public speaking event. The leaderless, amorphous group that acted under the hashtag has become known as the "Gamergate movement".

Gamergate is widely viewed as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity. Supporters of the movement say that the purpose of Gamergate is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by opposing social criticism in video game reviews, which they see as being the result of an unethical conspiracy among their ideological opponents—particularly feminism and the social justice movement. Commentators from Columbia Journalism Review, The Guardian, The Week, Vox, NPR's On the Media, Wired, Der Bund, and Inside Higher Ed, among others, have described the ethical concerns that Gamergate has focused on as being broadly debunked, calling them either trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics in the industry.

I think you make fair points. What do others think? The above does read to me as a somewhat closer representation of the sources, and the point about rape appears sound per policy. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any particular opinion about this suggestion, but I'd like to make it clearer what is being proposed. Affected parts are in green. There are some other changes, but they are merely grammatical.

Current wording:

Some of the people using the hashtag have said that their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by opposing social criticism in video game reviews, which they see as being the result of an unethical collusion among their ideological opponents—particularly feminism and the social justice movement.

Suggested wording:

Supporters of the movement say that the purpose of Gamergate is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by opposing social criticism in video game reviews, which they see as being the result of an unethical conspiracy among their ideological opponents—particularly feminism and the social justice movement.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I think Supporters of the movement say that the purpose of Gamergate is too broad and not supported by our article. Part of what our article talks about is how difficult it is to assign one position or stance to "Gamergate". The second half of that lede sentence is being discussed in another section so I'll suggest it be discussed there. — Strongjam (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Strongjam, thanks for doing this. The lede has been slowly but surely drifting, I think, both in terms of quality/coherency and in terms of its relation to the article as a whole. One thing I would ask is if we want primary targets of the attacks were or primary targets of the attacks include. I think there's a compelling argument for wording it in a way that makes clear that those three were part of a larger group of targets, hence the use of a subset term. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• @192.249.47.186: Also, as I was writing above, I notice that you seem to have forgotten (or decided against) changing primary to prominent. I agree with the change, and think it's worth doing, particularlyif ti was an oversight. It's been pointed out to me that I got myself right turned around, here. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that the term 'conspiracy' is important here (it's a word most sources use when describing the core ethics allegations). I don't feel that 'supporters of the movement' is a good term -- it's too loosely-defined (you can see endless confusion about it above), since people constantly argue over who qualifies as a "real" supporter, what real supporters actually support and so on (often resulting in circular discussions where people say that supporters axiomatically want XYZ and therefore anyone who finds someone using the hashtag for anything else wasn't talking to a real supporter, etc.) Defining them relative to the hashtag is what most sources seem to have done when confronting the question of who GamerGate is and who defines what it wants -- that is, they looked at the hashtag and the things that were posted there, as well as major discussion forums like 8chan (especially /baphomet/) and KIA. The 'some' qualifier is also extremely important, because I don't feel that the article's sources support the idea that all people involved in GamerGate (or using the hashtag) want the same things. --Aquillion (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Suspected invalid WP:SYNTH in lede added recently

Some of the people using the hashtag have said that their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by opposing social criticism in video game reviews, which they see as being the result of an unethical collusion among their ideological opponents—particularly feminism and the social justice movement.

I don't see article text which supports the boldfaced phrase from the lede. As far as I can see, "collusion" and "excessive social criticism" are independent tagets of "hashtag" not interrelated by causation. Please indicate the corresponding text of the article. -M.Altenmann >t 16:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed it's not really supported. I think it's true, given all the "Cultural Marxism" talk, but not well supported by our article at the moment at that's all that matters. — Strongjam (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's covered in the debate over ethics allegations section; Singal's piece goes over it, too. But we can always add more. Some citations:

• The First Things article says "The inciting incident was an August 2014 blog post by jilted ex-boyfriend Eron Gjoni revealing that independent games developer Zoe Quinn was having an undisclosed sexual relationship with video games journalist Nathan Grayson. For core gamers, it was proof positive that social justice advocates were colluding to undermine the distinctive identity of gamers, since Quinn’s and Grayson’s social justice politics were well known. Video game journalists as a group aggressively took up the social justice advocates’ perspective on the problem and rapidly used their near absolute control over the media portrayal of the story to launch a coordinated and ruinous attack on Gamergate supporters."
• Here: "They often pointed me to long, pretty involved conspiracy theories that seemed to claim, among other things, that various gaming websites were colluding to attack the “gamer” identity they held so dear, or that an indie developer named Zoe Quinn had slept her way to positive coverage."
• Here: "Their inquiry, passed around Twitter under the deeply sincere hashtag “#GamerGate”, alleges that writing op-eds about colleagues and peers is unethical, that a list of people who attended an academic conference together is proof of a conspiracy"
• Here: "So they coalesced around the #gamergate hashtag on social media, claiming they were out to expose a gaming conspiracy."
• Here: "Nevertheless, the launch of Sarkeesian’s video reignited a nonsensical conspiracy that feminist academics were seeking to control and censor games, instead of merely exploring them."
• Here: "But this isn’t actually an ethical violation; it’s more like attending a professional meetup. Gamergate tried hard to prove “collusion” and “bias” in media, but apart from its two initial discoveries, it came up empty."
• Here: "The gaming press is colluding to force a feminist perspective on readers that they're not interested in."

...there are others, but that was a quick look over some of the sources; most sources describe the core GamerGate ethics accusation as being that their ideological opponents have engaged in an unethical conspiracy to push their views. --Aquillion (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I think that takes care of the potential synth issue in the lede. Thanks! — Strongjam (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Defiining 'Gamergate"

What is "Gamergate"? The lede states it is a controversy. Yet some people are said to be pro- or anti-gamergate, or taking a side in favor of or against gamergate. How can one be for or against a controversy, which simply is? Can we have a definition of gamergate, please, in the article? Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I changed the lede to define the word as a movement or a manifestation. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Or we could call it a "social media campaign," per this source. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times, as recently as a few days ago, and the consensus has always been to use "controversy". Virtually all sources are about the controversy and events, and few (if any) are about the "movement" itself. Woodroar (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. It's what the RS say. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I think some editors might feel Gamergate is being described exclusively as a "controversy" so that the article doesn't have to describe it as a movement and attempt to explain the principles the movement says it represents. Even though a wide variety of sources do explicitly refer to Gamergate as a movement, hashtag, or whatever. Basically, it's being used to contend that the controversy is over misogyny, even if the movement wants no association with those accusations. If the page were about the movement, it makes little sense to so deliberately avoid stated goals made by the movement's prominent supporters.

At this stage it may be sensible to have a Gamergate (movement) page and a Gamergate (controversy) page, because either are notable and, at the least, one of those pages might contain information regarding why anyone even ascribes to Gamergate. Of course, editors will still disagree what the controversy is about since people joined the fray for different reasons and 60-80% of the sources are basically opinion articles that don't talk about the controversy's actual impact on this market sector. No well-established, experienced game devs have been harassed or driven from the industry, and aside from a few minor changes to their policies, it doesn't appear that any journals did more than stay neutral or fan the flames. There's been speculation about how all this is affected ad revenue for these sites, but the article just goes on and on with this non-stop drivel about who harassed who and who all the villains are. I know Zoe Quinn gets talked about, but to be frank she's actually not an influential figure in this or any industry and I'm kind of wondering if all this claptrap isn't going to sound incredibly trivial and empty in half a decade.

I think there are things that Gamergate is doing, but a lot of it buried under all the conspiracy claims. And let me say I suspect these claims of mass, orchestrated "misogyny" are equally insane and conspiratorial in nature. Do journalists and critics sometimes collude with each other or sleep with their subjects? Oh yeah, all the time, throughout history. It's a problem and causes plenty of problems for everyone involved. Are there misogynists on the internet? Obviously. Is there a chance that Wikipedia is maybe desperately fighting to provide a monumental amount of weight to opinions and fluff? YellowSandals (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, YellowSandals, what Wikipedia does in this article is to summarize what reliable sources say about the topic called GamerGate. Read the sources at the end of the article. If the body of the article does a good job summarizing what those sources say, then we are doing a good job here on Wikipedia. You could propose some specific changes, based on what reliable sources say. That would be productive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure it does, but you notice that on the "Pumpkin Pie" article Wikipedia doesn't talk about what everyone thinks of pumpkin pie. If they released a hundred articles calling pumpkin pie a misogynist food and we couldn't find a hundred articles just talking about what pumpkin pie even is, Wikipedia wouldn't devote pumpkin pie's entire article to documenting the dessert's misogynistic tendencies. Why? Because people's opinions are not considered a reliable source to write an article, even if they come from reliable sources. You would have to write that "people have widely said" with regards to all that, but you certainly wouldn't write the pumpkin pie article like the Gamergate article has been written. YellowSandals (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

But reliable sources say nothing controversial about pumpkin pie, but do describe GamerGate in the way we summarize here. So why do you mention pumpkin pie? I am 100% certain that if all major cookbooks, and the food section of the New York Times and Gourmet magazine all called pumpkin pie "misogynist", and virtually no sources disagreed, then Wikipedia would report that prominently. There is no evidence that pumpkin pies are constantly tweeting rape and murder threats to Anita Sarkeesian. But she's a GamerGate target, and the tweets pour in. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you know pumpkin pies haven't gained sentience and aren't responsible for the "mass, orchestrated campaign of misogyny" being ascribed to Gamergate. As has been mentioned before, Gamergate is not actually owning the harassment or explicitly promoting it. In fact, advocates for Gamergate have condemned the harassment as well - we have news footage of Somners doing so, for example. So we've got news sources saying, "these dirty Gators are misogynist jerks", but it seems odd that Wikipedia would be compulsed to then repeat that. What if they'd said, "dirty Republicans are misogynist harassers" or "space aliens are orchestrating a campaign of mass harassment"? This is why I feel like these claims of "orchestrated misogyny" are as much conspiratorial and insane as the other claims involved in Gamergate - the press has noted these particular individuals getting harassed and they insist on it belonging to a group they don't like, but you know, I really don't feel it's all that likely that Gamergate is mass orchestrating anything when we can note over and over again just how disorganized and decentralized the movement is.

In any case, I'm tired of allegories being dismissed with, "What? That's not happening because that's an unlikely situation and therefore silly to even reflect on, and if it were happening we would ruin 'x' article as badly as we've ruined this one." If they wrote a hundred opinion pieces on why various feminist pundits think pumpkin pie is misogynist - and who knows why they would, maybe they're trying to rally a political base to get more funding - Wikipedia wouldn't then change the pumpkin pie article into a quote farm about Anita Sarkeesian's mercilessly echoed opinions on pumpkin pie. If you did that, the page would have no value because it would be nothing but complaints about pumpkin pie with no clear explanation what pumpkin is from a non-controversial perspective. People who don't believe in "misogynist dessert culture", or whatever is abuzz in radical feminist academia today, would only come to that page and ask themselves "What in the heck am I reading?"

Think about it. If you write this article from the pre-existing supposition that all society has a culture misogyny, and that implicitly makes it possible for people to accidentally and spontaneously form misogynistic mobs over a seemingly random, non-influential woman who makes choose-your-own-adventure books with Twine and sells them on Steam, then this article makes perfect sense. However, if you don't know about that theory or don't believe in it, all this talk about orchestrated misogyny just sounds like conspiratorial crap, and you wonder what in the heck am I reading? YellowSandals (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to provide or edits to propose? This seems like a lot of words arguing on the internet. Hipocrite (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. We have articles discussing how and why these partisanships have formed. However, all rational explanation for Gamergate is being dismissed almost off the cuff because various editors "don't want to downplay the importance of this conspiracy of misogyny". There no proof there even is a conspiracy of misogyny, but there are certainly reliable sources discussing why people would form these party lines or how "video game culture" got to be so excruciatingly political. YellowSandals (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

What from that source would you like to use, and what concrete change to our article should we make based on that? Hipocrite (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This talk page isn't a place to speculate about utterly implausible hypotheticals. Instead, it is a place to propose and discuss changes to the article, based solely on what reliable sources say about the controversy. It is important to stay on task here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

All pretty much not responding to my first paragraph above, pleading for a simple definition. How many reliable sources refer to "Gamergate" as a "controversy," and how many refer to it as some other kind of noun or noun phrase, like (as I have mentioned) movement or manifestation? The article itself says alternately that Gamergate is a "manifestation" or a "controversy" or (I think) an "ethical scandal" (the comparison breaks down in that sentence.) In one other place our article says that Gamergate has "supporters," but what does that mean? That somebody supports a controversy for the sake of controversy? Another sentence says that many tweets were from "pro- and anti-Gamergate factions": Again, does that mean that these factions favored or opposed a controversy (which wouldn't make sense)? "As of October 2014, it was estimated that there were at least 10,000 Internet users supporting Gamergate . . ." Again, these people are supporting a controversy? Just WHAT are they supporting? ". . . three anonymous threats, the second of which claimed affiliation with Gamergate." Uh, it identified with a controversy? I could go on, but this article really has a problem in telling the reader exactly what Gamergate IS. Does anybody have time to do some research on this matter? How do WP:Reliable sources define the word? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate is a controversy related to sexism in video game culture. Hipocrite (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Or in more detail. Gamergate is a controversy that surrounds a hashtag, of the same name, being used by a loosely formed movement that is notable for the sexist and misogynistic attacks associated with it. — Strongjam (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I find these calls to define GamerGate very ironic as the "movement" has repeated ad nauseum that they have no leaders, no organization, no stated goals, no membership. This has been done despite pleas from many people, including Jimbo, that they would be taken more seriously if they had stated objectives. The only thing that ties GamerGate people together is the use of a hashtag on Twitter and, frankly, both "pros" and "antis" use the hashtag when discussing the controversy so even the hashtag doesn't define the "group". How can there be an article on an organization that intentionally avoids any organization?

But even as I reply to the comments above, I realize that in 20+ archived talk pages, this issue has probably been debated to death. I would like to participate in this article but taking on the talk page archives is daunting to say the least. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

As the lead says, The leaderless, amorphous group that acted under the hashtag has become known as the "Gamergate movement". It also describes, giving due weight to each, a variety of things that that movement does. In the rest of the article, and in common parlance, that's what is supported or opposed by "pro-" and "anti-Gamergate" forces. (I agreed that this was confusing before, and I worked to add this sentence.)--Carwil (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

But, what you're actually asking

I've taken a stab at what you are actually asking, which is "We can't call people "Gamergate" supporters, or pro-"Gamergate," if they don't have a real nexus." I've included various controversies, movements and what not. Lots of "Gamergates" could also be replaced with "the controversy" or "the movement." I'll revert on reasoned objection - feel free to present such here. Hipocrite (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Which is it? A "controversy" or a "movement"? Any sources for either definition? Oh, well, I've got some time now, so I will try to find some. Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Hipocrite, who has attempted to make a distinction between the uses of Gamergate as a '"movement" and as a "controversy," here. This seems a very positive step. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree with this 'movement' / 'controversy' edit (and ask that you revert it as you offered.) The problem is that you're categorizing various coverage into coverage of "a movement" and "a controversy" when I don't feel that that division is clearly supported by any sources -- some of them have referred to it as one or the other interchangeably, so we could use the words in a few places, but by inserting them in so many places in the article you've implicitly divided up in a way that feels mostly arbitrary to me -- eg. "Observers have generally described the Gamergate controversy as a culture war..." vs. "The Gamergate movement has frequently been described as involving anti-feminist ideologies..."; I see no difference whatsoever in the sources for those statements in terms of what they're referring to, whereas this edit implies that the sources were clearly talking about different things. I think it's better to simply use 'Gamergate' in the vast majority of cases rather than try to force sources into a movement / controversy distinction (which I don't feel most of them actually support; most commentators tend to use one word or the other to refer to the entire subject.) We can mention both in passing, but I don't feel it is reasonable to try and divide every source into one category or the other by using the terms 'movement' in so many places. Beyond that, it reads forced to me -- most of the usages just don't feel natural, like someone went over and tried to insert 'movement' in as many places as they could justify in order to answer an objection on talk. I understand that some people are bothered by the lack of a real nexus about what gamergate is and what it means (which makes statements like 'supporters' sometimes ambiguous), but the fact is that that ambiguity is a core part of most coverage on the subject, as attested to by many of our sources -- we cannot resolve it here with this sort of sweeping division without delving into WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If one has the time, one could go through all the places where User:Hipocrite has made the changes and see if the sources support that particular edit. Or one could refer to the list I just posted: Of course one should always refer to the original sources for accuracy. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted Hipocrite's changes; see some of my additional reasoning below. I don't object to talking about it as a movement or a controversy in a few specific places (it has been characterized both ways, as well as many other ways), but I believe that the default, unless there's a clear overriding reason otherwise, should just be to talk about "Gamergate" as a noun, since that seems to be what most sources do. I definitely object to trying to go over every source in an attempt to categorize them into one term or another; I think that most commentators, whether they say 'controversy' or 'movement' or 'culture war' or whatever, are basically talking about the same thing, just characterizing it slightly differently. --Aquillion (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems logical. GeorgeLouis (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was sleeping when you made your request, Aquillion, else I would have reverted it myself. Apologies. I weakly believe we need to add more explainers when we use "Gamergate," but so weakly as to defer to consensus above. Hipocrite (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Industry response section

Should this be a subsection of Subsequent harassment? It seems like it focuses on the industry's reaction to the harassment specifically, so it might help with the article's flow to have them together. I think the only exception is the fourth paragraph about the policy changes, which could possibly be moved into the Gamergate hashtag section or the Gamergate organization section?

Side thought- the information about Intel in the fifth paragraph might fit better in the Operation Disrespectful Nod section. Kaciemonster (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Makes sense, so I'm going ahead and doing it. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree with this change. My issue is that many of the sources cited here simply speak about 'GamerGate'; this is especially true for the final paragraph, which is not exclusively about harassment but about feminism and the role of women in the industry. Moving it into Subsequent Harassment makes the implicit statement that those sources are exclusively talking about harassment, which I do not feel is necessarily justified by their wording. A lot of this gets into the same issues we've been discussing below -- what is Gamergate, what do people mean when they use the term, etc -- but I don't feel comfortable lumping all the commentary in that section into "they were talking exclusively about harassment." Damion Schubert's response, for instance, focuses on Gamergate's objections to specific reviewers and commenters, not just on harassment. And, more generally, the industry response is one of the parts of the topic most heavily covered in the media and therefore deserves its own section; we could expand it with other forms of industry response, if we can find good sources for them, but I don't think it makes sense to make it a subsection. --Aquillion (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of Revert by Strongjam

I used my one revert today for this. I think it potentially could be added to our article, but that we need better sourcing for it. Generally we've been avoiding Gawker for anything that isn't a statement about themselves or is completely non-controversial. — Strongjam (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the revert. WE would not turn the article into the long laundry list of incidents. Per WP:TRIVIA, IMO incidents must be used to illustrate major issues in the article and only if they gained a reasonable notoriety. -M.Altenmann >t 16:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: Has the subject of using Gawker as a RS been discussed before, then? Apples grow on pines (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't have the archive links handy, but it comes up quite a bit. There still RS as far as I'm concerned, but whenever we use a Gawker source the talk page explodes. The #Referencing Claims section has some examples of the types of complaints. To avoid disruption if we can avoid using them we probably should. Also I think in this particular instance since it involves a living person (the person who made the video) we should wait until we have higher quality sourcing. — Strongjam (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thank you for clarifying. Apples grow on pines (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

What the sources called it

Regarding the definition of "Gamergate" that should be in our article, I checked all the sources that were posted online during November and December 2014 and up to today, 3 February, to see how they defined the term or anyway how they used it in context. Here's what I came up with, using quote marks for the actual words and no marks for my interpretation of how the source defined "Gamergate."

• Candice Barnes in the Sydney Morning Herald (January 24, 2015). A “movement.”

• Jessica Mendoza in the Christian Science Monitor (January 20, 2015). A “movement.”

• T.C. Sottek in The Verge (January 17, 2015). A “gang.” A “mob.”

• Juju Chang and Katie Yu of ABC News (January 15, 2015). A “war.”

• Alex Hern in The Guardian (January 13, 2015). A “movement.”

• Caitlin Dewey of the Washington Post (January 13, 2015). A partisan position (it has supporters).

• Helen Lewis in The Guardian (January 11, 2015). A “culture war.”

• Nadia Kayyali and Danny O’Brien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (January 8, 2015). (Not a Reliable Source.) A “magnet for harassment.”

• Michael McWhertor on Polygon.com (January 6, 2015). A “harassment campaign.”

• Nick Winfield of The New York Times (January 6, 2015). A “controversy.”

• Jenn Frank in Slate (January 5, 2014). A work of “intertextuality.” A “culturally significant moment.”

• Nathan Mattise in Arstechnica (January 4, 2015). A “movement.”

• Kathleen Bartzen Culver of the Center for Journalism Ethics (January 3, 2015). An “ethics case.”

• Nathaniel Givens in First Things (January 2, 2015). A “controversy” (twice). A “bunch of . . . gamers” that had “members.” Also a concept that had “supporters and critics.” A “social justice movement” of which one can be a “partisan.”

• Joanne Weiner in The Washington Post (December 31, 2014). An “online fight.” A “conspiracy” that has “supporters.”

• Aja Romano of The Kernel (December 21, 2014). "Battle" (twice). "Attempt to control." "Cultural debate." "Campaigning and harassment." A place (it has “denizens” (three times) and it was overrun by trolls. A partisan position (it has “proponents” — four times) and it can cite examples; it also has “concerns” and an “agenda” and it tried to prove “collusion” and “bias” in the media. "Movement" (three times). Object of an investigation (it has a dossier). An organization or at least a grouping of people (it has "members" — twice) and it has a "strategy"; also, there are “Gamergaters “and “non-Gamergaters” ). Period of time (the Guardian was in the middle of it). One side of a debate (it failed to demonstrate and it has “supporters”).

• Jay Allen in BoingBoing.net (December 21, 2014). A group of people fighting for a cause (it has “supporters” — twice — and “opponents” and “thought leaders” and “personalities” and “GamerGaters.”) Something that can have “values.”

• Taylor Wofford in Newsweek (possibly December 19, 2014). An “online movement.” An organization or a team (it has trolls “claiming affiliation”).

• The Guardian (December 19, 2014). A “protest.” A “vehicle for sexism.”

• Brendan Sinclair in GamesIndustry.Biz (December 15, 2014). “Online tire fire.” A “source of . . . shame.” “sad affair” A “movement.” A “fiasco.” Something that had a “beginning.”

• Kevin Opsahi of the Herald Journal (December 14, 2014). A “discussion.”

• Ian Douglas in the Telegraph (December 12, 2014). A “video games protest.” A concept (it has “supporters”).

• Jaime Weinman in Maclean’s (December 8, 2014). A “movement” (twice) (it has “Gamergaters”) . A “feud.” A concept (it has attracted commenters about it). A cause (it will have a “effect”).

• Anders Sandberg of the University of Oxford (December 4, 2014). Culture war.” (This is simply a blog and not a WP:RS.)

• Keith Stuart of the Observer (December 3, 2014). "Movement" (twice). "Community" (twice). "Campaign." "Group."

• Fruzsina Eordogh of the Christian Science Monitor (November 25, 2014). “Slugfest.” “Digital nightmare.” But she suggests that the term also refers to the people who have been making the online attacks she describes because she uses the term Gamergate “ringleaders.” Also, “online sabotage.”

GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

My issue (as I mentioned above) is that I'm dubious whether this supports the idea that these people are talking about different things. They use many different terms, but are all apparently talking about the same subject, so I feel that that we should try to primarily stick to using 'Gamergate', unqualified, when referring to it in the article text, and mention terms like 'movement' only in direct quotations. Applying it beyond that gives the impression that people who use those terms are talking about different things, which I feel is unwarranted (since the 'movement' vs 'controversy' vs whatever else discussion seems primarily limited to our talk page -- it's not a distinction that any of the sources seem to make, beyond frequently noting that gamergate is hard to define.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I am in basic agreement with Aquillion here. In the body of the article, we can just call it "Gamergate". In the article title, because there is an ant of the same name, we call it "Gamergate controversy". And it is indisputably controversial. But I see the arguments for calling it "Gamergate movement" in the title since that word is used so often in reliable sources. The valid objection to calling it a "movement" in Wikipedia's voice is that is is entirely leaderless, lacks a unifying statement of goals, bases itself in part (as I see it) on plausible deniability of harassment, but yet seems to implicitly promote harassment. The associated harassment clearly exists, though supporters deny responsibility. Therefore, I am undecided about the "movement" label. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Beyond that (and I realized this while going over Hipocrite's edits to revert them carefully), the majority of the sources don't use either term repeatedly the way that edit did -- most of the time, when talking about Gamergate, sources just say things like "Gamergate did this" or "Gamergate caused that" or "Gamergate is driven by these things." They tend to use Gamergate as a noun; having the article constantly use leaden terms like "Gamergate movement supporters" or "the Gamergate controversy" to it came across as unnatural to me, because (even if sources occasionally characterize it using one word or another from the above list), the vast majority of the time they just use the word 'Gamergate'. There are some references to both still there (because there were some from before Hipocrite's edit), where appropriate, but in general I think we should stick to just referring to 'Gamergate' without qualification unless there's a pressing reason to do otherwise in a particular place. (I suspect that this is because of the '-gate' suffix; while few characterize it this way explicitly, and we can't really call it such in our text, the way they use the word is as if Gamergate is a scandal, eg. the same way people refer to Watergate or any one of the other numerous -gates -- as something that is happening, more than anything else. Actually, if you read it as a scandal, the term "Gamergate supporters" or just "supporters" -- which do appear in a lot of sources, without any explicit reference to what they support -- makes a lot more sense, in that they are 'people who support the idea that Gamergate is a real scandal.' But this is just a parenthetical aside about how I see the term being used in sources and why I think that is; part of the problem is that there isn't actually much discussion of this sort of terminology outside of this page, so we don't have sources to address it directly.) --Aquillion (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

To support this in policy, the current choice is clearly supported by WP:COMMONNAME. The "controversy" is simply a disambiguation title. It's not ideal, but it's the least undesirable choice we have. Sticking to just "Gamergate" in prose is a simple and elegant solution to uphold neutrality. Any other choice will lead to meaningless contention.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Is it out of the question and/or against policy to suggest that the Gamergate article about the ant be moved to Gamergate (insect) and this one moved to something innocuous like Gamergate (2014)? Gamergate could then become a Disam page triggering the Bots to message the associated Users in order to resolve and correct the 100s of Wikilinks connected to these 2 articles. There are 60 or so links to the article, but hundreds for the "controversy" article. Perhaps Gamergate controversy could be changed temporarily to a Disam page as well to trigger the Bot notices to further aid in correcting the inbound links before finally making it a redirect unless pointing the redirect to a Disam page would accomplish the same thing. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is generally resilient to override topics of academic interest with popular culture which might be more popular/common (For example, we did not replace Avatar the religious concept with the film when it was the huge thing); this is based on the concept that GG the controversy/movement will only be a "short term" concept compared to the ant which is fixed for the foreseeable long time. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough and I concur that WP should be resilient towards overriding topics of academic interest with popular culture, but I am suggesting that we make the academic article title more specific and remove a point of contention from the title of this article. Just the use of the word "controversy" is to some extent POV. Even the disam notice at the ant article is a little POV, "This article is about a type of ant. For the 2014 video game culture controversy, see Gamergate controversy." My emphasis added.

Furthermore, if you check the articles in the Category:Ants, Gamergate is one of the few missing the "ant" qualifier in its title such as Gliding ant, Harvester ant, Honeypot ant, Leafcutter ant, and Queen ant. The article title is inconsistent with its related articles. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You're comparing apples and oranges, a bit, when you compare Gamergates to Gliding ants, or the like. "Gliding ants" and the like are groupings of ant genera; "gamergates" are a specific type of (female) ant. (Also, gamergate is simply the correct terminology.) AtomsOrSystems (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

And you're not being fair by citing only the example that does not fit the comparison exactly. Queen ant demonstrates my point and the others support the contention that the current Gamergate title is inaccurate. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith, I was just doing my (admittedly poor) best to point out the difficulty with your suggestion. I should also point out that (from my admittedly limited knowledge of this particular field of biology), when referring to a queen any, you say "queen ant." When referring to a gamergate, you say "gamergate," without adding ant.

However, I'll be the first to admit that my own knowledge here is limited. If we're going to seriously discuss this, can I suggest starting a discussion at Talk:Gamergate, or at least leaving a note there? We might get more knowledgeable participants, that way. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 21:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and left a note there, just in case. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 21:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• The entomological term "Gamergate" is most closely comparable to "Ergatoid", "Alate", and "Queen ant". The only reason "Queen ant" has the "ant" suffix is because there is arguably more academic interest in the general concept of a human queen than in the concept of the queen ant. The article on the human queen also predates the article on the queen ant by a good 4.5 years. In the matter at hand there can be little doubt that the GamerGate brouhaha will be little more than an unpleasant memory long before the entomological term is retired from use. Also when discussing the move of other pages not related to this one it might be courteous to at least invite those editors who have been working on the other page to participate before charging full-steam ahead. (NOTE: Ah, I just saw the invite. Thank you, AtomsOrSystems!) -Thibbs (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd be against it, and the sudden attempted move was pretty out of line when there wasn't even consensus here much less at the article in question. Thibbs pretty much hit the nail on the head in terms of why ant doesn't follow the term in this specific case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)