Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Combining Nathaniel Givens and Carter Dotson (in Social and cultural implications)

Hello! It seems people are very eager to add any commentator who might speak in favour of things they like. I'm not sure we need to add entire sentences to the leading paragraphs of sections when these things are discovered. Instead, I'm going to try to find a way to generalise its contents and add it as a source to the Nathaniel sentence we had, given the similarity in what they're saying. Let me know what you think. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If anything, we don't give that perspective enough play. I don't agree with your change. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

We give perspectives play according to how many reliable sources portray them. The higher the quality and quantity of our reliable sources which write about something in a particular way, the more our article reflects this. They don't both need separate sentences in the lead paragraph of that section. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

And I disagree that they don't both need separate sentences. We should be working to balance out this article, not try and minimize one side of the discussion as has been going on for six months running. Improved attribution is one aspect, but accurately and fairly representing relevant points of view (as opposed to minimizing them) is another. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to recommend you read our policies on NPOV. We cannot portray minority views as 'equal' or 'as important as' non-minority views. That you're advocating we have two 'pro-gamergate' commentators each given separate sentences in this section-lead paragraph (which would only have four sentences in it) is surely something you realise as more than a bit silly? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm very familiar, thanks. I am not arguing that they should be portrayed as "equal" or "as important as." I don't believe it silly at all to include those perspectives there, as it's part of the wider discussion of that section (a section that also needs improvement). Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Those perspectives are included- I haven't removed anything, merely condensed two very similar articles into one generalised sentence. If you believe it should be placed elsewhere in that section, you're welcome to move it- we're the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and so on. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it was fine the way it was, and should probably be reverted. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

There's an issue, Thagor, with both claiming that you understand our policies on NPOV and that we should have two separate sentences dedicated to single articles from 'pro-gamergate' (a rather minority view) commentators in the section-lead paragraph. My suggestions are not automatic- I give them based on the level of knowledge the person I am talking to displays, and I had assumed you had not read these policies. If you have read these policies and truly want to change the article in that way, perhaps you should re-read them, as these policies make your suggested course of action untenable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a problem of weight in this article, and not just in this section. Minority points of view require proper weight, yes. They currently do not have enough weight as needed on a variety of levels to satisfy NPOV. This is not a pro/con issue, but one of writing a neutral and accurate encyclopedia. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If you truly believe the article is unbalanced, surely there are easier ways to fix that than to ceaselessly complain of me merging two near-identical opinions into one sentence. Given MarkBernstein's approval of my edit, and a review of it myself, I see no issue with it and as such (unless somebody else disagrees with it, in which case we can work towards a better solution) I'm going to go do something more productive than attempt to satisfy your complaints. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, we're working on it. Slowly and steadily. It would be great to get some help on it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The only thing that will "help" the position you are advocating for is if a whole lot of people from very respected publications start coming out with commentary and analysis that varies significantly from everything that has come before (with no new voices coming out with analysis and commentary that counters them). WP:UNDUE . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, we could start by actually giving the information and publications in play their proper weight. You on board? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that we are not the sources proper weight. Where are the more reliable sources not being given enough weight? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As both writers are making closely-related opinions, and as those opinions are clearly a minority view, summarizing them in one sentence seems quite reasonable and is considerate of the readers. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey! New issue with this bit: Somebody had "disconnected from reality" added to the sentence summarising these commentator's views. While it's certainly very vicious, it doesn't seem at all representative of what we're sourcing here, and I don't think we can accurately use it to summarise Nathaniel's article in particular. Everybody fine with me removing this barb? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• That's the problem when you combine stuff. How about ... environment in video game culture; Givens described this culture as "aggressive" while Dotson described it as "toxic" and "disconnected from reality". Also, the current "have described the movement as a reaction to an increasingly progressive environment in video game culture, which they described as" is misleading -> could be misunderstood as "the movement" is aggressive etc. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • How about we go back to what it was before the change? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If you would like to revert it, kindly explain how it's better the way it was with policy based arguments (none of this 'two sides, teach the controversy' stuff), and revert it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

How reliable are the claims of harassment?

Absent some FBI report or some such proof, it's wrong for us to state that #gamergate supporters harassed this woman as described in the article. It is wrong for us to repeat her claim that #gamergate supporters harassed her in these ways, let alone that they did so because of the motivations ascribed to them by her, without some proof from a police investigation or other informed expert opinion demonstrating that #gamergate supporters did indeed harass this woman, or that they don't want women involved in video games. Reason and evidence dictate that the harassment could have come from third parties, [BLP REDACT], or other possibilities. Yet the overall effect on a naive reader of this article as written at last edit is to come away with the impression that #gamergate supporters for sure harass this woman, but this has not been proven. This is not acceptable because mere allegations by partisans of one party to a dispute cast by another party to the dispute, and motivations ascribed to the other party to this dispute, these things should not be expressed as proven reasonably enough to be in an encyclopedia article, without reference to conclusions of investigation by informed disinterested experts. Chrisrus (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why reliable sources saying that gamergate supporters harassed someone is not sufficiently reliable to include? Hipocrite (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The question is whether the evidence supports the claims by the sources. For example, the claims made by the Guardian about the ArbCom ruling were reliable sourced, but not accurate, so we opted not to use them. This is a valid question that I know has been raised a few times, but has been attacked by others as a BLP violation for even being raised. Maybe we can actually have a discussion as to how to properly attribute the claims? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"The experience of Anita Sarkeesian is not just an isolated incident of an attempt to harass a woman out of participation in gaming culture. Over the months of August and September in 2014, an independent game developer by the name of Zoe Quinn and her friends have found themselves the target of an equally misogynist backlash by a coordinated conspiracy. While originally labelled under the hashtag ‘#quinnspiracy’, it evolved into a collective movement known as ‘gamergate’." — Heron, Michael James; Belford, Pauline; Goker, Ayse (2014). "Sexism in the circuitry". ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society. 44 (4). Association for Computing Machinery: 18–29. doi:10.1145/2695577.2695582. ISSN 0095-2737.

The paper also goes through some chat logs and analysis of the harassment. There is no reasonable debate among reliable sources about whether some GG supporters have harassed people. — Strongjam (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not, of course, what's being questioned. There's little question that there was harassment in some form, the question is about other forms: the claims about police filings and FBI investigations and so on. That is not as "well settled" as some want it to be, and, having been dealing with this page for a while, the "settlement" far too often was "shut up, we're just going with it." There's a reason topic bans were levied. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else you're looking for. Reliable sources have reported that the police and FBI are involved, and that's good enough for us. Not just good enough, really, but the absolute best we can ask for. We don't do our own original research and any official documents would be primary sources, so there's literally nothing more we can do except to wait for (a) more reliable sources about the reports, or (b) reliable sources about convictions. Woodroar (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I will let Chris explain exactly what he's looking for, but no, simply reporting things is not "good enough for us." At worst, we need to be more careful about how we're attributing many of these claims, especially controversial ones. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That was indeed what was being questioned "the overall effect on a naive reader of this article as written at last edit is to come away with the impression that #gamergate supporters for sure harass this woman". Which absolutely should be what readers come away with, since it's supported by a wealth of sources. — Strongjam (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue is one of attribution. There is definitely an issue with the article when it makes the decision that the impression is so, as opposed to attributing that impression to the relevant parties. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

IMO it depends on exactly what you're questioning with regards to harassment. If you're claiming that all the harassment is made up by the victims and none of it has happened, that is very clearly a BLP violation as you're accusing someone of malicious "professional victim"ing without any reliably sourced evidence. If you're questioning whether Gamergate are the ones who are carrying out the harassment, I cant see how that could possibly be construed as a BLP violation. But on that topic, the article never explicitly says[i think] that "gamergate supporters" (a loose and baggy term that could mean practically anything), are the ones responsible for harassment. Just that harassment has been done through the Gamergate hashtag (it has, see Brandwatch survey), and on sites like 8chan (it has, see doxing of Brianna Wu). I dont see the problem here, unless someone can point me to a specific example I've missed.Bosstopher (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming that "all the harassment is made up." The question is about attribution and confirmation, it appears, and is a valid one. If that is Chrisrus's angle, I don't support it, but there is a broader question that we should be looking at now that things have flared down a bit. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That was part of Chrisrus' angle but I redacted it. The third party trolls issue is definitely one worth discussing though.Bosstopher (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely no question. We have extensive reports in newspapers, including specific reports of police filings (Wu, Quinn, Harper) and police statements (Sarkeesian). A We have a report in the New Yorker, whose fact checking has long been legendary. We have academic papers published by professional societies. (Redacted) The repeated insinuation that widely-reported harassment did not occur or was faked are a BLP violation, This thread should be hatted at once or deleted; this has been discussed (too often) and settled (too many times) already. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop talking about each other, if it continues you may be subject to sanctions. Dreadstar ☥ 21:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mark, this sort of vitriol is not helpful. Please stop assuming the worst of editors you disagree with. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Thagor, I'd appreciate it if you stopped trying to bait somebody into getting angry with you. Your post is nothing but a misrepresentation of what he's saying, and is in very bad faith. In response to the question of how reliable the claims are- incredibly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC) No one is trying to bait anyone. If you think such comments are helpful, that's a problem. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Same user has pushed same POV repeatedly (both here and in Sarkeesians article). You need only check their edit history on this page to see the same pattern of behaviour (particularly the appeal to the FBI as the only arbiter of harassment / threats). No assumption required on Marks part fwiw. Koncorde (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thankfully the discussion is mostly focusing on whether perpetrators of harassment were mostly third party trolls or gamergate supporters. I've redacted the only (two word) accusation of harassment being faked, and the rest of the discussion is moving along much more productive lines. I see no reason to hat. Bosstopher (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate is the harassment. Period. When you havethere is nothing but a hashtag for your a "movement", yourthe "movement" consists of everything done under the hashtag. If whats done under the hastag is harassment, thats what the "movement" is. If youpeople want not to be associated with harassment, then youthey need organization, non-anonymous official spokes people, an actual agenda of concerns etc. Outside of the harassment it is non notable. Unless youanyone have specific sources to discuss, this is just more meaningless, unproductive bluster.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to make sure: by "you," you mean hashtag movements, and not me right? I dont really have any source issues on this topic I feel like bringing up, and think the article as it stands gives the harassment aspect a fair enough shake. My comment was more defending the idea of this section not being hatted, because I think this discussion could be fruitful if more specific talking points and sources are brought up. Bosstopher (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The simple answer is that the article goes by what we can find in reliable sources. The article as it is now has, overall, very good sourcing, relying on multiple high-quality independent sources for the most important or controversial aspects. If you disagree with the conclusions those sources draw, you need to find other sources to back that up; just using your own logic about how they might be wrong or biased or so forth is WP:OR and can't really be used to build the article. --Aquillion (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any suggested edits or possible sources here, just a lot of SOAPBOXing about why the RSes shouldn't be believed with respect to Gamergate's status as a harassment campaign. The editor also didn't bother to specify who "this woman" refers to, which is darkly amusing. drseudo (t) 20:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the use of "this woman" bothered me, too. I assume it was used to avoid a BLP violation that would occur if the subject were named.

What I hear people asking for is an investigation into the investigation done by the reliable sources used in this article. But, as Aquillion notes, this would be original research, even when governed by "reason" and "logic" which I see constantly appealed to and which seem to actually mean "common sense according to me." Just stating that ones opinion was derived by reason and through logic doesn't make it so or make that opinion relevant to editing this article. This comment isn't directed to any editor in particular, I just these two words thrown around a lot with the implication that if you disagree, you are unreasonable and illogical. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I vaguely recall the wizardchan/8chan guy attributing harassment to real people through IPs as an admin of those boards. That was reported in sources, though I don't recall which ones. I'd prefer names and dates as opposed to invisible bogeyman blame. None of those named as GG supporters have been called harassers yet all of GG is named as harassers. It's a non-sequitur at best and BLP violation of association at worst. --DHeyward (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no question that there was harassment; it's been reported by numerous sources, many cited in the article. There is no question that the harassers claimed to be associated in some way with #GamerGate; it's been reported by numerous sources, many cited in the article. There is no question that police reports have been filed and restraining orders obtained; this, too, has been widely reported. There is not question of a BLP violation of an anonymous harasser, because the anonymous harasser by definition has no biography. There is no question here. No one is blaming a bogeyman for anything; reliable sources from The New Yorker to The Guardian, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and many more agree that individuals were harassed by people claiming to support #GamerGate. There is nothing to discuss: this has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Mark, as you can see, there are clear disagreements about your assertions here. Furthermore, proper attribution improves the encyclopedia. Discussion about articles and how to handle sensitive topics improves the encyclopedia. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

While there are "disagreements" they are based on personal opinion with no supporting sources- which makes them just basic civil disruption. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

I wrote the above post this morning, and returning to it now and having just read the responses, if I may under the circumstances just start at the left margin again, to sort of indicate a reply to all of the above, by revising my earlier statement taking the above replies into account, below.

If a source includes reasonably substantive evidence, such as, for example, the conclusions of independent, disinterested expert authorities, such as the FBI, that some specific instance of harassment actually happened, that it was indeed harassment and not legitimate criticism, that the harassment clearly did come from #gamergate supporters, and that the harassment was done for the motivations as ascribed to the harasser by the harassee, then by all means when we pass those accusations along in this article we can phrase it in such a way that implies we are vouching for the validity; simple declarative sentences that are read to mean "this actually happened".

If a source merely repeats allegations of harassment made by parties to the dispute, with no sign of skeptical investigation or findings or proof by someone qualified to say so, or if a source merely repeats sources that simply repeats accusations from a party to the dispute, we cannot rightly pass them along without clear indication that these are someone's allegations, we don't write this article in such a way that implies these things have been proven. It's wrong to pass along one side's accusations without due diligence on our part to carefully check each source to see whether the allegations within are merely repeated or whether there is reasonable evidence in the sources. Chrisrus (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, this is, in fact, an issue of attribution, then? If so, can you give an example from the article as to what you're talking about and how you'd opt to reword it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This fascinating proposal replaces WP:RS and WP:OR with a new policy that would require Wikipedia "carefully to check each source to see ....whether there is reasonable evidence". As I understand things, Talk pages are not the appropriate forum for radical revisions to policy; I believe that’s WP:Village_Pump? Until policy changes, when reliable sources like the Boston Globe report these events, Wikipedia follows them. If the Boston Globe were to write tomorrow that no GamerGate supporters were involved with the harassment they previously reported, we'd follow that -- weighing it, of course, against contrary views in conformity with WP:DUE. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Without any sources to support any of these wild assertion, we are done and further beating this dead horse is the poster child for disruption. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That policy that allows us to do that is NPOV: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." As such, the lack of any clear evidence or legal rulings on the matter put everything the press says as a claim - the predominate claim that must be represented as the predominate one - but not as fact. (Note: I no question the harassment occurred - we have statements from police involved stating they are looking into it. There's other factors, however, the above NPOV policy applies to). --MASEM (t) 00:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Well then we are REALLY done, because there is NOT ANY let alone "serious" contestation of the facts. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes there is. First , the people at the center have expressed doubt; the press, as semi-involved (as this is an attack on journalism) are not 100% independent here so we have to consider their word with some question (per the RFC earlier), and that there are reliable sources that put doubt onto some of the claims (like GG being a harassment movement than about ethics). We simply don't say what the press claims as facts, but as claims of the press. As soon as there's evidence to remove all doubt from the situation, then we can make it factual. --MASEM (t) 00:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

the semi involved press?? give it a break. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the press is involved enough to question their bias - not to deny they are RSes or the weight of their views, but the fact that they have not explained the reasoning for their claims is a strong sign of bias and why we should report their statements as clains, not facts. The Guardian article about the ArbCom decision is a perfect example of what we have to watch for here. --MASEM (t) 05:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No. No it is not. Please read the findings of the ArbCom particularly 5) and 12) and notice there there is not any finding 15) declaring a massive conspiracy involving the media. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Where did I say anything about conspiracy? It's simply understanding that because GG's arguments are about journalism, news sources are not 100% independent of this subject and we have to consider the bias they carry. CRJ's report on GG points out that the journalism on the situation is difficult because of lack of information, that's what we should be considering here in the accuracy of reporting. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a conspiracy theory to claim that all media are inappropriately semi tainted against gg because- they are the media and gg says they are colluding. complete rubbish and nonsense, devoid of any contact with reality.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The core of your point is that there are 'seriously contested assertions' we're stating as fact in the article that we shouldn't be. What are these assertions, and who is seriously contesting them (is it you)? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

To start: The lede "These attacks, initially performed under the Twitter hashtag #gamergate, were later variously coordinated in the online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in an anonymous and amorphous movement." That's not how the movement or some sources talking about the movement view it - that's how the press believes it is. That needs to be a claim, not a fact. --MASEM (t) 00:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Err... are you contesting that attacks were performed under the hashtag, that they were coordinated on online forums, or that gamergate is anonymous and amorphous? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't even pretend to know what Masem contests, but personally I contest the notion that they were coordinated. At least some attacks were verified to be using the hashtag (although it was never completely verified whether the offenders were GamerGate-supporters, third party trolls using the tag or 'anti-GG' using an nasty move - and I doubt after all this time I can be verified unless the FBI-investigation reveals something), and the movement is certain to be anonymous and amorphous (spelling?) MicBenSte (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That they were coordinated by the group that considers itself the movement. That there was harassment under #GG, yes, That there was some coordination on forums, yes; but the movement's connection to being involved in the coordinated harassment is tenuous, particularly if the group denies that it is doing it and that sources support the idea that there are some in the GG movement that are anti-harassment. The GG movement could be lying, but we don't have evidence to prove that is the case. As an objective source, we should consider that claim contentious and simply make sure it is presented as a claim. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

We can't go against our reliable sources just because the movement the reliable sources discuss doesn't like how it's portrayed. I'm sorry. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not going against the reliable sources; restating what an RS believes is fact but is really a contentious statement and stating that as a claim is not going against the RSes. That's exactly what that line in NPOV I quote is all about. It would be going against the RS to say that they are flatly wrong, or stating what GG claims they are is fact. They are both claims on both sides as the truth is very much unknown. --MASEM (t) 05:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

'is really a contentious statement' according to some person on the internet. As mentioned by other editors- the earth being a sphere is also a 'contentious statement' according to the other 'side'. Our reliable sources overwhelmingly report the fact of the harassment being co-ordinated by gamergate types, and thus, that is what we have in our article. Going against this is not 'upholding NPOV', it is violating it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

They claim this, they have not demonstrated any evidence to clearly state it as fact that we, as an objective, impartial work, can use. That's the whole point of that NPOV phrase that there is no violation of sourcing to simply make what is stated as claims and avoid implying anything stronger by stating it as fact. You can't just repeatedly say "the RS say so, so it must be fact". Our policies do not support this POV - we are about verifyability and not truth, and as such all policies state to take the more conservative few and avoid stating any statement of contention as fact. Additionally, since this is a controversy, that means that statements on all sides are contentious to those on the other sides, and as such, we should treat them as claims. NPOV is very clear on this. --MASEM (t) 07:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggest you re-read WP:V. It does not require our sources to show their work. If you have reliable sources that show these claims contentious then bring them. Otherwise we will continue to apply WP:ASSERT for statements of fact. — Strongjam (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:V does not require us to be mindless automatons either. We do not need reliable sources to show that a claim is contentious during the discussion of whether/how to use a source, just in the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The flat-earth analogy only applies if you ignore the distinction between fact and opinion. If scientists merely claimed the earth were round without offering significant proof: pictures from space, the disappearance of ships' masts over the horizon, escape trajectory, etc. we'd be right to consider the spherical earth an opinion and state it as opinion. Conversely, if RSs offered significant proof of Gamergate's harassment, we'd be right to state the harassment as fact. Neither is the case. Here's a better analogy: "George W. Bush was a bad president." We find majority support for that in RSs but Wikipedia would never state it as fact. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"George W. Bush was a bad president." is an opinion. "Gamergate supporters have harassed Zoe Quinn." is a statement of fact well supported by a variety of RS and there is no serious contention that it is not fact. — Strongjam (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

And if I argued "Gamergate supporters have harassed Zoe Quinn" is a statement of opinion, how would you refute that? On what bases do you distinguish fact from opinion? —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Then you would be wrong. It is a statement that something occurred or is actually the case. It is not a subjective statement. — Strongjam (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it is subjective because the definition of what is a "Gamergate supporter" is subjective. To some, they are those that want to discuss issues of ethics in journalism; to others, it is anyone using the hashtag #gamergate. As such, the statement is subjective. Objectively, it is true that Quinn and others were harassed by people using the #gg hashtag, but not necessary the same as the gamergate movement. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No true gamergate supporter? No, I'm sorry, but it's a true statement well supported by sources, not a subjective statement. — Strongjam (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No, not supported at all by sources. It is claimed by sources, but they do not explain in any manner how they got to that conclusion, and is counter to what other just-as-reliable sources claim. As such, the statement is contentious and should be reported as a claim, not fact. The logic "reliable sources must be right because they are reliable sources" is not what policy says (reliable sources are verifyable but they are not necessarily right), and certainly we as tertiary editors can apply the appropriate caution as outlined in NPOV policy. --MASEM (t) 17:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This same exact conversation happens about once a week. It's time that we start recognizing it for what it is: a dead end. Kaciemonster (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The reason this keeps coming up is because at the core of every issue raised, for the most part, is a lack of objectivity by both those pushing the GG agenda, and by those that are trying to condemn and attack the group using the predominate press view as a tool for that. WP is 100% neutral and objective, meaning we cannot judge which side is right or wrong when there is far too little evidence, expert analysis, or legal evaluation to do that, and should be treating most of the details beyond the actual events and harassment (which can be clearly verified) as claims attributed, and not as fact. In that regard, as a tertiary source, as outlined by NPOV, we can make judgement calls to treat purported facts as opinions if they seem to be contentious claims. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

We keep Wikipedia 100% neutral and objective by following the reporting of the reliable sources, which is the exact opposite of what you keep suggesting. Also, I wasn't asking why this keeps coming up, I was suggesting that we've been through this conversation multiple times already with no changes coming out of it. Do you plan on arguing this once a week until you get the response you're looking for? Kaciemonster (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"they do not explain in any manner how they got to that conclusion". WP:V does not require our sources to explain how they arrived at their conclusions. "is counter to what other just-as-reliable sources claim" Which sources in particular are that? What are you basing this claim that this is a contentious assertion? — Strongjam (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

But NPOV allows us to evaluate claims made by RSes to judge if they are fact or opinion, particularly for contentious issues. As I've pointed before, we have Salon's articles, some from the The Verge, and other sources that acknowledge that there is at least a subset of the movement fighting against harassment, so no, we cannot say, factually, the entire movement is responsible for harassment. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Not really addressing what I asked, but "we cannot say, factually, the entire movement is responsible for harassment." Nobody is saying that. What is being said is that Gamergate supporters have harassed people. There is no reasonable debate about that in RS. — Strongjam (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

These attacks, initially performed under the Twitter hashtag #gamergate, were later variously coordinated in the online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in an anonymous and amorphous movement. from our lead is saying that. And this again comes to what is the definition of what a "GG Supporter" is - some would claim it is anyone that uses the hashtag, others would claim it is those that support a discussion of ethics in gaming. The nebulous nature of what GG is and that it remains poorly defined (not only by those in the movement but by the press as well) means we need to be very careful to stay objective on what is fact and claim to avoid incriminating people that have done nothing wrong (beyond perhaps havind odd and skewed sense of moral values). --MASEM (t) 18:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That does not say all GG supporters harassed people. In context it's saying that the controversy gained significant attention because of the attacks under the GG banner, and those attacks were coordinated on online forums.. — Strongjam (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I have to work long hours every day and so can't keep up with this conversation, so I'm sorry about starting at the left again but I'd like to reply generally to what's gone on above since my last post again.

This goes to the heart of what Wikipedia is about. The highest rule is, everyone should just be reasonable, and all other rules flow from that, and when application of a rule results in something unreasonable, that reasonability trumps rules, see WP:IAR and WP:RRULE.

Jimbo Wales was right to say that we are not "transcription monkeys". We are human beings capable of editorial judgement. Not everything in WP:RSes is equally reliable or article-worthy or worth us repeating with confidence. We can, do, and should look carefully at the sources to see whether they or the sources they describe reasonably seem to be in a position to know with reasonable certainty whether something particular thing they are saying is true or not, or whether sources they quote in the sources are themselves reliable enough for us to say, based on that, that something is true or not, and what we might best do about that.

For example, the NotYourShield section leaves the reader with the impression that all or most users of that hashtag are sockpuppets. But just because a source says that a biased party to the dispute told them that she had seen some proof that #notyourshild users are all sockpuppet accounts, that doesn't mean that this article should confidently state that they are in fact just sockpuppet hoaxes run by people of another sex and gender.

Furthermore, to continue with this example of #notyourshield, if a talk page contributor were, for example, say, to link us to a playlist he'd made of thousands YouTube videos of women who support #notyorurshield, some editors here seem likely to delete that evidence from the talkpage and instruct us all to pretend we hadn't seen it, treat it as unknowable by us and not let it influence which evidence about #notyourshield we present from the sources and how we present that to the readers, simply because that playlist is not something we can cite. This is not proper. ANY reasonable evidence that the article/sources are wrong about something important should always be welcomed by Wikipedians, and given due consideration with regard to how that something should appear in articles on Wikipedia, or what might be the proper way to respond to proof we can't cite that we/the sources are wrong. I could point to you many times in my years on Wikipedia when someone has come on the talk page and told us something was wrong but didn't have a citable source but one thing led to another and it led to article improvement. Many times the person was angry and not behaving properly, and some of us had trouble seeing past that to the important and useful criticism that person was making, but in the end the system worked anyway because good Wikipedians heard the people out and saw past such things as incivility and such to the important valid point(s) the person was making and didn't worry so much about the rest because the focus is only article improvement for the benefit of the reader, which is above all else.

In the case of this article, this has become a particular problem because of the nature of it's referent. Given the nature of the sources, some editors seem to have far too much certainty that everything these media sources say about this media consumer's revolt is worthy of inclusion simply because it's in these sources, as if they were Jimbo Wales's "transcription monkeys", when reasonable doubt and skepticism is at times definately in order about what they are saying about certain things such as for example they have no obvious way of knowing with any reasonable certainty what the demographics #notyourshield users are based on the evidence provided.

Sorry I don't have time to edit this more now because I have to sleep, big day tomorrow. Happy editing! Chrisrus (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

The proposals discussed above move from remarkable to astonishing and now arrive at a pinnacle of whimsical delight. Are we now seriously proposing that NPOV should permit editors to disregard the consensus of reliable sources because those sources are involved? This directly contradicts WP:RS and renders WP:OR a dead letter. It guts WP:FRINGE utterly: every fringe belief is convinced that the established sources are biased against it. Or is this exemption only to apply to GamerGate? How are editors to know that GamerGate is exempt from WP:RS, but Scientology, Creation Science, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are not? Can any editor declare the reliable sources are all biased and require special scrutiny, or is this privilege reserved for special editors? In that case, how are newcomers to know that the instruction to disregard WP:RS in the supposed interest of WP:NPOV comes from a special editor who can authorize this? Can any group apply for a GamerGate exemption to WP:RS -- and if so, to whom do they send they petition? This is not a contribution to the encyclopedia; this discussion should be closed and should not be revisited until the preponderant judgment of reliable sources has clearly changed. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If WP:CPUSH has any force at all, does it applies here? This argument appears to be taken almost verbatim from section 2.3.3 of WP:FLAT. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes we can evaluate sources in this manner as we are an objective tertiary source. We have to evaluate sources in the course of writing the encyclopedia for reliability at the whole encyclopedic level and article level, and evaluate specific articles from sources in application to the article. This is very much a requirement that we consider in determining what are RS, who are reliable authors, and where the line between fact and contentious claim is drawn. As a neutral, objective work, we take the conservative line and any contentious statement that lacks clear evidence of being true and repeat it as a claim - it doesn't contradict the source, simply putting a claim with proper attribution out of WP's voice. And this process is one of consensus and past policy developed by consensus - we're not t editor but we have to go with consensus and established policy. The issue is not one of balance (which everyone has come to agree that we're never even going to have something like 50-50 here) but impartiality and objectivity. We simply cannot assume that the press is "right" when they have made claims without any backing evidence and others argue against those point. This is why we've pointed out that we don't flat out call Westboro a hate group, or Scientology a fake religion in WP's voice, despite the predominance of sources that present this view, as there is no evidence these are true. Same with many claims specificly directly at the GG movement. --MASEM (t) 05:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

We evaluate sources for their reliability because we trust them to engage in the sort of fact checking and editorial control that we require. We don;t necessarily need them to provide additional information if we can safely assume that they would have undergone whatever level of fact checking would be expected for the particular claim. We generally trust NYT not because they publish all of the proof for each claim, but that we expect a publication of that calibre to have processes in place to ensure their accuracy, even if they don't show us. Similarly, we regard academic journals as reliable because of the peer review process and issues around the reputation and standing of the authors and publications. Given that confirmation in this case would simply involve reading IRC logs, visiting 8chan and 4chan, and checking out Reddit, I'm not convinced that they need to outline all of their proof in their articles if it can be reasonably assumed that a suitably reliable source would have ensured that it was accurate. - Bilby (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's the "reasonably assumed" that's the problem. One side of this is "reasonably assuming" that the reporting is correct. Attribution is key here because there's a lot of questions involved in this reporting that aren't being seriously addressed. This is a very controversial topic, so the opposition to proper attribution is especially baffling. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not really particularly controversial. Russia invading Crimea is controversial. Morocco refusing to host the Cup of Nations is controversial. It's just a significant event on the internet with an inordinate amount of fluffy sources freely cross-posting through the mediums of social networking (one of which happens to be wikipedia). We do not assess if the "reporting is correct", we use wikipedias policy on reliable sources to reflect the consensus. Koncorde (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If I need to amend my statement to say that's it's controversial within it's fairly insular bubble of gaming culture, then do so. But yes, we do assess whether the reporting is accurate. We do it all the time. It's part and parcel of being an editor of an encyclopedia, by assessing sources for their reliability. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like Tomato / Tomato to me. The sources are reliable, ergo the content is valid. Whereas the "reporting is correct" is a value judgement. Even if I don't agree with what the article says - if it's from an RS then I cannot argue with its validity (only then its context and suitability for the article, BLP or whatever within wikipedias other criteria). It would be expected the reliable source, if incorrect, would issue a retraction or correction as per editorial oversight - which is largely what makes something reliable. The only time I would see evidence of "reporting is correct" being some kind of valid criteria is when dealing with twitter or blog material (which is where they should only be used for exceptionally fluffy stuff if at all). Koncorde (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It is expected, yes, but it doesn't always happen. We made the sort of "reporting is correct" criteria on numerous occasions, most notably here with the Guardian/ArbCom debacle (and we were correct there). We're doing it with the Cathy Young material (and shouldn't be). "It's a reliable source" is never enough justification. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Same issue - Tomato / Tomato. A - depends on what you were using the Guardian piece for. B - depends on what you are using the Cathy Young pieces for. It's not a case of wrong or right, or "reporting is correct" as a value judgement. I consider the Guardian Arbcom to be a reliable source and see no issue with its use (not that I think it has any relevance here to be honest), but we have policies that deal with wikipedia becoming the subject of any discussion. Koncorde (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian Arbcom article is a good example of what an RS does. They printed a correction. — Strongjam (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That was my thought also, but I never read the original or the context of how it was to be included in this article for me to constructively comment. Koncorde (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The IRC logs and visiting 8chan and 4chan and Reddit shows exactly how much doubt there is in the statement (or variations of it) "The gamergate movement is directly responsible for the harassment", which is the most significant problem with how the sources are framing this. There are a significant number of people on those forums that can be seen that are clearly part of the movement and want to discuss things about ethics, and clearly are against the use of harassment or similar attacks for intimidatation and even fight against; these people are even identified as the "GG Moderate" in some sources. This is not saying their arguments are right (much of what they say are conspiracy theory-level assumptions, or lack an understanding of how professional networking is important), nor is it saying that the movement has enabled the harassment via the overall attitude towards Quinn etc. and their unwilling to distance themselves from the term GG to avoid. But, to do what the RSes have done and what our article says as a fact, that the movement as a whole is doing the harassment, is a highly contentious statement when you consider all the sources, and exactly what you can see if you do your own legwork. That there likely individual members of the movement doing the harassment while at the same time supporting the movement, I'm sure there exist some, but that does not mean the movement's purpose is factually to engage in harassment; we also have sources that say there's a sign the harassment is being done by trolls with zero interest in GG but using the overall lack of confusion to make things a mess for all.

Note that this also stems from what the movement "is". The actual "movement" (if you go to the above sites) make it clear they consider the movement to be about ethics, etc. But there are some of our sources that claim the movement just anyone using the hashtag, which of course would include those doing the harassing. Yes, lots of blame on the overall confusion on the lack of organization at GG, no question on that, but still this begs membership of who is in the movement to a point that saying the movement as a whole is doing the harassment is an exaggeration.

So that's the core issue that I have here - we have statements in the WP article that assign the direct harassment to the movement because some sources say source, despite other sources - not as predominate - and actual investigation of the matter showing this to be far too broad a claim. It's not necessarily wrong, because perhaps behind all those forums, there's private mailing lists that are being used to engineer the front of anti-harassment while they harass otherwise. But it's also not necessarily right and there's sourceable claims from other good RSes to counter that point. It's also one step away from falling afoul of BLP, in that it is an accusation of criminal activity without evidence towards persons - just that BLP does not cover pseudo-anonymous groups, but the same principle should apply in that WP should not be making such accusations that are not legally justified. Simply restating this "fact" as a claim with attribution to coming from a predominate number of sources brings that part into compliance with NPOV. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That seems like the thin edge of a wedge Masem. If Gamergate is unable to tell us who its members are, and the reliable sources are unable to discern their members, and Gamergate is unable to disavow the harassment, then it's catch-22. We just go with the RS's and try not to make a travesty of an article. We can't protect the faceless and nameless using BLP standards if they're faceless and nameless (and that seems to me what is sometimes being pushed), just as we can't single out the individuals responsible for the harassment (or even wholly identify their ideology). Hooray for amorphous self subscribed organisations. The argument you're pushing is like a form of mass "no true Scotsman". Koncorde (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You're proving my point: who the membership of GG is is unknown and/or poorly defined due to several factors. As such, any statement that broadly statements the membership did X is contentious from the start due to that lack of knowledge. So we simply state that as a claim, not a fact as defined by NPOV. We should still include a statement like "most commentators believe that the movement is responsible for the harassment, and the ethics play is a front for this (add ref list here)", which gets across the predominate view, but we cannot say "the movement is responsible for the harassment" in WP's voice because of the uncertainity and contentiousness in that statement. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This is tiring. I don't think there is single source that says GG supporters haven't harassed Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu. We're not going to violate NPOV and try to introduce doubt or give the impression that there is any sort of debate about this. It is not contentious in the least. If you have sources to show that it is contentious perhaps bring those here. — Strongjam (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No, several sources like from Salon point out that the harassment may even be coming from outside the GG supporter group, in addition to what GG supporters say. It is a flat out contentious statement. If sources call a group a subjective label X and that group says they are not X, that's immediately contentious and we have to treat both sides as claims. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Links? I see no such assertion in our Salon article, that the harassment is coming from 3rd party trolls. I have seen statements that some harassment may be from outside agitators, but I haven't seen a single source take the stance that only outside agitators are harassing people. — Strongjam (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"This is why we've pointed out that we don't flat out call Westboro a hate group, or Scientology a fake religion in WP's voice, despite the predominance of sources that present this view, as there is no evidence these are true." Have you read the Scientology or Westboro article recently? Both of those things (somewhat verbosely in the case of the Scientology page) are quite clearly outlined by wikipedia, in wikipedias voice, by referring to reliable sources. I see no difference to this article. We're getting into unnecesarily complex and undue levels of "proof" being vetted by editors when we are simply reflecting the reliable sources. The only unreliability are the allegations from the conspiracy theorists. We do not allow the movements to dictate how we present 9/11 or similar "controversial" events - and nor should we here. Koncorde (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"The church is widely described as a hate group[4] and is monitored as such by the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center." Attribution to sources. Scientology's lead takes three paragraphs before noting that critics define it as a cult. Attribution, and the actual popular consensus viewpoint on Scientology is much, much more exact than this topic. If you're arguing that this article should be handled similarly to those two articles, I absolutely agree based on how they're currently written. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes and no, I would direct attention to my edits to the page when this article first started. Article should have been called "#Gamergate" so we could refer to the movement and content of claims with context (the same way we treat Wesboro and Scientology, i.e. we treat them as valid entities), and then had the same controversy / harassment discussions subsequent. Current page being called "Gamergate Controversy" is 90% of the problem as it means any attempt to represent the other side of any argument is built onto a pre-existing clause that this is about a controversy (it's a loaded statement). We do not refer to Westboro as the "Westboro Controversy". Koncorde (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm still surprised it's here and not at least at Gamergate movement. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate is a leaderless, largely unorganized campaign that isn't even a year old. It doesn't have official criteria for membership, issues no press releases and doesn't even have a website. It can't possibly be compared with organized churches like Westboro Baptist Church or the Church of Scientology.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Neither was Occupy Wall Street. But we talk about them as a movement regardless. It's completely possible do that here with all the sources we have (including the counterclaims that some don't consider it a movement due to lack of organization). --MASEM (t) 20:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Occupy had an identified mission and identified spokespeople. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I think there are identified people part of Gamergate aren't there? And Gamergate has tried to push a mission. That the majority is faceless and mission statement derided is not particularly important. I think it would be one of the simplest fixes of many POV complaints. Koncorde (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Who is a spokesperson for Gamergate? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Seriously... It's a campaign against perceived problems with ethics in a specialized form of entertainment journalism. Do you have any idea how low that ranks as a social concern? If you compare that to a campaign aimed at income inequality, you've lost all sense of perspective. I'm not sure there would even have been a separate article about this if it wasn't for the harassment and sexism.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Seriously... its a troll harassment campaign against women in video games. the reliable sources state over and over that "but ethics" is merely an "ostensible" cover/rallying cry. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

An argument of "There is other more important stuff" doesn't change the basic issue that Gamergate exists as something other than a controversy. The RS reflect that most of what is notable about it is the controversial aspects but it doesn't preclude it from existing in its own right. That is the comparison with Westboro. Koncorde (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't actually need to make a directed WP:OTHERSTUFF-argument because there basically is no coverage of Gamergate with the harassment removed; no coverage, and no notability to speak of. It was an attempt to underscore the essence of Gamergate with the harassment removed. Consider at least entertaining the idea as a possibility.

As for comparisons with Westboro Baptist Church, have you read that article recently? The information on the church itself is limited to three small paragraphs under "History". We keep the article under the church's name because churches are an established form of organization. Gamergate is not.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

But that wasn't the rationale for why Gamergate ended up at Gamergate controversy, the reason for that was the existence of another article with the same name. And otherwise there is a lot of coverage of Gamergate, massive chunks of it, often discussing its supporters and how they could change, or do better, or don't meet their objectives, or why they are a front for harassment...all of which is barely touched on currently as the article largely focuses on one significant aspect of the coverage when there are larger questions often being asked. Koncorde (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Recentism

The whole article lacks substance. The only interesting thing I could find was the data about the number of tweets. Spannerjam 18:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The primary reason the media cares about this group is because of its success with advertiser boycotts. But that issue doesn't even make it into the lead. The eigenvector (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, but not true - the media took interest long before any boycott took place, and the limited success of the boycotts has drawn very minimal attention. Not saying it shouldn't be in the lead, but misrepresenting its significance helps nobody. Koncorde (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Correct, the only reason there is any coverage of the "boycotts" is because the companies that responded to them looked terribly bad, as if they were supporting the harassment (that is actually what gamergate is noted for)- and that the companies that had inappropriately responded to the boycotts, very quickly un-responded, and in the case of intel went on to actively court Sarkeesian. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

That's enough, thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This again? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC) In all frankness, this article may get better as time passes. Right now there are too many people (particularly unblockables) who have a vested interest in GamerGate one way or the other. A few more years will pass, and once again neutral editors may feel like touching the subject. I certainly am afraid of adding my own contributions to the article (aside from correcting grammar and spelling) due to the butchering that some neutral editors have received, despite ArbCom's decision on the matter. Meşteşugarul - U 22:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC) WP:CIV /WP:NPA please stop tossing accusations and names at other editors. Present your arguments based upon what the sources say. (and you could strike the above to demonstrate that you are here for the project and not for personal agenda)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Forgive me. I may have been a little underhanded. However, I have yet to recall mentioning the name of an editor. For this very reason I stand back and just watch. Regarding the whole controversy in itself, I consider myself uninvolved (particularly because I have been more focused on things like my business and I normally don't like prying into any political battles). I only came here because a few people on a social media network I visit regularly have been talking about the article, saying some very negative things about ArbCom's decision. My point is, The eigenvector, that this article will probably take a very long time to fully flesh out. It always happens with controversies that many people have deep personal investments in (on both sides of the aisle). Meşteşugarul - U 22:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC) You may not have specified anyone by name, but your comment cannot be seen as anything but attacks on other editors currently on the page.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC) I'm sorry if my comments have inspired ire. I didn't mean to sound daft. Truce? Meşteşugarul - U 23:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Yes, unsupported accusations and aspersions against other editors either specifically by name or by implicit connection will tend to inspire ire. That is why they are not allowed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

tl;dr

this article has gotten way too long... needs heavy editing back down to a manageable size or to be broken up. Tom (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Current article is 127.9 kb. Over 100 kb is recommended for splitting. (WP:SIZERULE) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: That's 100 kB of readable prose, the current size of 127,953 bytes includes markup, references, etc.. Plain text prose size according to Prosesize is 43 kB. — Strongjam (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Strongjam. Then this article is perfect length. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Strongjam, where do you locate this kind of information? Just curious. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Liz, I was curious too, but it's in the link they have: Prosesize. Very useful tool it seems. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEAD - For long articles where people may not put the effort to read all the way through, all they need to do is read the lead. I think the lead does a pretty good job of covering the important "takeaways" from the the article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the lede could be improved. One thing I'm sure about is that it will continue to be contested for months to come. This is an article that needs to be on a lot of Watchlists for the foreseeable future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the lead needs improvement too. It does not explain why the female developers were subject to the attacks, or why the attacks are notable in the first place (4chan, et al. are always trolling somebody). Tom (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes certain incidents set off a chain of events that makes them notable. In this case it became a very obvious example of issues with sexism in the video gaming community.

The reason for the attacks is given quite clearly in the lead: sexism. Just like with racist attacks, the method wording of the attack become its own rationale. We can elaborate on the underlying reasons for racism or sexism, but that's more relevant to articles like sexism in video gaming.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not explain why female software developers were subject to attacks, because the preponderant opinion of reliable sources is that the attacks are inexplicable. Scant explanation of why they are notable is needed; the preponderant opinion of reliable sources is that they are a notable pattern of criminal behavior. The lede does a fairly adequate job of communicating this. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

the sources do have an "explanation" of why GG targeted Wu - she made fun of them. But I dont think we need to get into that level of detail in the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible source from VG247

So with the result of the Law and Order: SVU episode, it caused developer Mark Kern to write a petition to have Kotaku and Polygon to be held responsible for the episode. The petition itself has over 1000 signers. And the article mentions GamerGate a lot in it too. Developers shooting the messenger: stop blaming the press for sexist extremism in games. GamerPro64 17:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd leave it out for now, seems kind of like a small issue in the large scale of things. The op-ed from vg247 is seems pretty dismissive of the petition. Unrelated, but someone should add some sources to Mark Kern, otherwise it should be deleted. — Strongjam (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It might be the best for us to not have this added to the article. Re-reading it a second had me realize that the writer for the article may have quoted himself in it. I don't think that's a good sign. GamerPro64 17:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the author quotes himself in the very first sentence. In any case, I'm with Strongjam in that this doesn't seem big enough to be worth covering. Random ^(?) 22:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

SVU as "amalgam"

The source says: As expected, the fictional woman at the receiving end of the episode's online, game-related harassment was an amalgam of real women in the games industry. The character Raina Punjabi (played by actress Mouzam Makkar) resembles Feminist Frequency host Anita Sarkeesian in no uncertain terms (hair pulled back, giant earrings, shown in online videos giving monologues). It does not say the character is an amalgam of Sarkeesian, Quinn, and Wu. Stick to what the source says: the character resembles Sarkeesian. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir (talk · contribs), Ars Technica's article literally says "the fictional woman at the receiving end of the episode's online, game-related harassment was an amalgam of real women in the games industry". It's true that several sources mention Sarkeesian as the most obvious model, but it's not the only person on which the character is based (see the sentence "a lot of gamers think..." in the article). I hesitated between two versions for that sentence, would you find this other one acceptable?:

...including a character modeled after Anita Sarkeesian and other real women involved in the controversy.

Diego (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. My sentence in the article didn't say anything about Quinn, and Wu, so I understand the reason for your revert. Diego (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Would "modeled after Sarkeesian and based on multiple women involved in the controversy" or something similar work for you? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm introducing it in the article. Diego (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat what I said above, and say that I don't feel it's really worth covering the SVU episode in the article. Yes, it might seem a bit relevant now (since it's the only recent thing in the news to reference the controversy), but ultimately it's just trivia -- it doesn't seem to have added anything, and pretty much all the commentary on it is that it didn't really contribute much in terms of analysis or insight or whatever. At best, maybe we could mention it in passing in the timeline, but honestly, SVU does a ripped-from-the-headlines episode all the time, and it isn't usually worth mentioning them in their corresponding Wikipedia article. Six months from now, is anyone looking back on this likely to care that there was a SVU episode referencing it? It'd be different if the episode had happened early on (and was therefore part of what brought it to popular attention or made it notable or the like), but as it stands it just feels like trivia to me. --Aquillion (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of social justice category

Hi! I noticed that the social justice category was removed, and TheRedPenOfDoom has commented in edit notes that the only connection with this is the rants against people purportedly called "SJWs". While I agree that this assertion has merit, I'd like to discuss with you whether the removal was justified or not, and perhaps persuade the editor to revert the edit.

I present my reasoning: Even though Gamergate isn't a "social justice movement" per se, it does pertain to the issue of social justice in video gaming culture. The persons impacted (women in the gaming industry) have been affected by this ordeal, and I find the fact that they were affected by harassment to be relevant to the theme of social justice. I want to hear the thoughts of the Wikipedia community, and most importantly, the thoughts of the editor who made this edit, to see if we can come to a conclusion that could help me understand why this edit was made. TRPoD is, in my opinion, a much more experienced editor, so perhaps I could gain a little insight into why these changes were made and whether the changes were made to adhere to a Wikipedia policy. Thank you! Meşteşugarul - U 16:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Just based on the current contents of Category:Social justice I don't think this article really belongs. Maybe in a sub-category though? — Strongjam (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

My first and biggest mistake here, it seems, was to neglect opening the category itself. Thank you for bringing some clarity :) Meşteşugarul - U 16:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you coming from the view that the opposition to gg, the universal analysis and commentary that "women in gaming shouldnt be harassed" is the social justic connection? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Kind of is a social justice connection, but one that is probably covered in a more specific category such as Category:Discrimination — Strongjam (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

In short, yes. The theme revolving around the opposition is a perceived hostility against women in the gaming industry and even in the technology industry. I can infer that some of the references used in this article decry the amount of outright hostility against women who try to make a place for themselves within these respective communities. But Strongjam has already made it clear to me that the article doesn't fit in the category. Meşteşugarul - U 16:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I assumed that's why the category was there. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You all are more experienced than I am, so I normally just default to deferring to your logic. Strongjam has made a good point that the article is unfit to be included in a category that has articles with another nature of coverage, then suggested instead that we add it to Category:Discrimination. When browsing through that category, it seems more fitting. I see this as a purely semantic issue. Meşteşugarul - U 17:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can accurately describe anybody in the gaming industry as 'implicated' by gamergate- that implies actual guilt on their part. I'm perfectly fine with this article not being in the 'social justice' category, given the seeming current focus of it. It doesn't quite fit with the others. PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I meant to say "impacted". Thanks for pointing that out. I will edit my statement. Meşteşugarul - U 16:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I'm glad the discussions like this are civil and the merits of the edits can be considered, not in consideration of how the article will be viewed by readers but by how the GamerGate Controversy fits into larger categories of Wikipedia. Since many of the conversations and debates here concern very small edits, it's easy to focus on the trees and miss seeing the forest. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit I had dealt my own fair share of (slightly) stupid behavior on Wikipedia (also particularly in this talk page). But in general, I appreciate the effort that everyone else takes and take heed when stronger and more experienced editors than myself give me a talking to. I think I may write a little advice column on this in a subpage of my user page, but this is what I take from my experience in Wikipedia so far:

• The fact that I've toiled endlessly on an article does not make me more right than another editor who reverted my changes.
• I must become detached from the subject matter to have a clearly objective view on it. If I cannot do this, I must stay away from it.
• I must resist the temptation to "right great wrongs" and instead focus on the ultimate goal of improving Wikipedia.
• I must remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battlezone or truth-finding mission. Reliable sources are all we have to indicate something as objectively "true".
• Editing with someone who opposes my POV might actually become a learning experience if I approach the person in a proper manner and put aside my own ego. Every time I edited alongside others who were diametrically opposed to my POV, it was (perhaps ironically?) a pleasant experience, one which teaches me a lot about people on "the other side" that I may not have considered. Meşteşugarul - U 19:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Mestesugarul, one element of editing on Wikipedia that is still hard for me to accept is that a dozen editors can hash out differences of opinion, try to come to a consensus on any number of conflicts, over a period of months...and any one of us could return to this article a year later and find the article has been completely rewritten! There is no final version. While that is humbling (and helps to prevent WP:OWN), it does put some disputes into a little perspective. We can spend pages and pages arguing over one aspect of the article and some future editor can come by and rewrite it all. Those changes might (or might not) be reverted...but the take-away is that we can polish this and polish this article but there is no final, unchangeable version of GamerGate controversy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Back to the original question that started this thread, I agree with removing this article from the social justice category. The only connection that I see is the persistent effort by some GamerGate supporters to take the generally positive two word phrase "social justice" and transform it into a three word pejorative "social justice warrior" as a verbal weapon to attack and caricature their opponents. That's my view of the matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The term social justice has been around before Gamergaters added "warrior" to it and presented it as something bad. Had I heard the term before seeing it beaten to death in a Gamergate context, I would have considered it a compliment. Or at least a fairly neutral description of highly devoted activists.

Wikipedia will be around long after Gamergate vanishes into obscurity and so will the term "social justice". I am very strongly opposed to any suggestion that we allow terms like "social justice" be defined by a vocal loud-mouthed minority of sexist video gamers.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the term's been around long before GG blew it up. But back then, depending on context, it was either a positive term for people who put a lot on the line for social justice (like Gandhi and MLK) or an insult referring to people who try to use privilege arguments for all the wrong ends, especially as an excuse for harassment (like the stereotypical Tumblr user). Sadly, very few who haven't had to deal with the latter on a regular basis knew about the term before GG, and /pol/ - from which a good chunk of 8chan's GG board came - thinks those two definitions are one and the same (on the grounds that "money is the only real privilege" or something, IIRC), so here we are. In any case, though, yeah, per Cullen, I support the removal. Random ^(?) 14:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If anything, it seems we even have a consensus supporting the removal from the category. Meşteşugarul - U 13:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Relevance to subject of the article?

in Gamergate_controversy#Targeting_advertisers the final sentence of the second paragraph (particularly the second half) have to do with the subject of this article? "The Columbia Journalism Review commented that, while the tweets were likely jokes, "it's no secret that Gawker is the bully of the [I]nternet."" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I was never a fan of it's inclusion, just seems to be there to take a swipe at Gawker. Doesn't really add to the readers understanding of the controversy. — Strongjam (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think a better pull quote might be "While the issue goes into convoluted gamergate territory, it didn’t make Gawker...look good." The source and information is relevant, but I don't love the quote we have. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that quote is better if we need one. Gives more context, it didn't make Gawker look very good, and it was a bit convoluted, hence immediate reactions from companies like Adobe. — Strongjam (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm in favour of just removing it altogether- doesn't seem like it adds much information to the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Gawker is notable for being the target of an email campaign to their advertisers. But their role in the actual controversy, beyond being a target, is minimal. They have posted articles critical of GamerGate but only one of their blogs, Kotaku, covers videogame journalism and their entire corporate collective of blogs was targeted. Their actual articles on the subject of GamerGate are very similar to ones published by other news and gaming blogs. The fact they were singled out in such a striking way seemed puzzling to me at the time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

They were singled out not because they ran a "Gamers are Over" article, but because Nathan Grayson works there. For example, the KotakuInAction subreddit pre-dates the articles, it was created 06:13:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC). — Strongjam (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a key aspect of the controversy and about what Gamergate is about, so to remove it would really be a negative to the article. We really need more coverage of situations such as this, not less. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please explain your rational for why someone stating that Gawker has a reputation for not playing nice with other internet media has ANY relation to gamergate. With sources please. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

While not with regards to other media, Auerbach has argued that Gawker's role in the whole controversy is hypocritical: "Now Gawker is stirring up a new bogeyman for clicks, not social justice, defending women only after its revenue streams are threatened—a ploy some advertisers evidently see through. Gawker, if you want to claim any moral authority on Gamergate, I would first issue a public apology to all you have wronged"[1] But I'd suggest we instead replace it with Thargor's alternate proposal of "it didn’t make Gawker...look good," and leave the bully quote which doesnt necessarily work.Bosstopher (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

RedPen, Kotaku, part of the Gawker network, is central to the controversies surrounding Gamergate, both in the conspiratorial and ethical points. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Clearly not to the the sources covering the controversy. None except this piece have had any mention of Gawker's prickly relationship with other media. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources covering the movement have certainly highlighted Gawker's role numerous times, and this source pretty clearly links the movement to it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD would you have any issue with Thargor's alternative proposed quote which doesnt mention Gawker's relationship with other media, just that the tweets made them look bad?Bosstopher (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Quoting Aurbach to state that he thinks Gawker played the GG story entice readers? How relevant is that and where would it be placed? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

No. This quote from CJR: "While the issue goes into convoluted gamergate territory, it didn’t make Gawker...look good."Bosstopher (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, Gawker's only relevance is the fact that they were a GamerGate target. Their coverage of GamerGate is similar to that of other blogs. If you are actually talking about Kotaku, than say Kotaku. But since this is all about "ethics in gaming journalism", I think what is most relevant is what gaming blogs had to say, not Gawker. The sole reason that Gawker was a target is because of few flippant Tweets that "outraged" gamers and they struck back. But except for Kotaku, Gawker has nothing to do with videogame journalism. I don't think their coverage of GamerGate was more notable than that written by authors who actually are knowledgeable about the gaming industry. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

As Kotaku is run/owned by Gawker, it's very relevant. If you're only working under the assumption that "gamergate = harassment," I understand what you're saying, but if we're working under what's actually happening in the real world, Gawker's relevance is apparent, and the source makes that expressly clear. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

those who may be "only working under the assumption that "gamergate = harassment," are, well following the reliable sources, like we are supposed to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

If we're following reliable sources, we include the Gawker information. Like we're supposed to. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

If we are following the sources, ALL of them focus on harassment. A small handful mention Gawker. Of those small handful that mention Gawker, most dismiss the GG claims about it. So, while Gawker may loom large in the obsessed minds of GG, in the real world - as per coverage of the reliable sources WP:UNDUE, Gawker has squat all to do with the gamergate controversy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't get off track, this is about this specific section of the article, and about Gawker, the movement and advertisers. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You were the one who is attempting to suggest that "gamergate = harassment," is not the foundation of the reliable sources' coverage and that we need to enter some "real world" where Gawker plays some major role. THAT is off track. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggested nothing of the sort. Please stop. Thargor Orlando (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamers are Over Paragraph

Just trimmed the Gamers are Over paragraph. Thought I'd explain my reasoning here.

• Dropped the quotes from one of the articles. I didn't think it really helped the reader.
• Moved up the Gamestar bit about it being viewed as a conspiracy. Seemed important to me. I've been told it's not an op-ed so I didn't attribute the opinion.
• Removed Kain, since the Slate article covered the same points I just went with that.
• Changed "attack" to "alienate" seemed closer to the article where he says "There is no faster way to alienate my audience—that is, the people who pay my bills. And yet, this is exactly what writers at not one but half a dozen online gaming publications did to their audiences last week."

If anyone wants me to revert please ping me. — Strongjam (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Declaring that the old image of "gamer" is over and has been replaced by a diversity in gamers today seems more like alienating some readers than attacking them to me. The fact that this change in demographics about who plays games is backed up by trade organization studies makes it appear more like it is recognizing a reality than attacking individuals (who, ironically, then supported this view by the #NotYourShield campaign). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: The Gamestar piece is an op-ed - very much so. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @ForbiddenRocky:, I'll attribute it just to be safe. — Strongjam (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: I would revert this sentence, and/or I would get one of the Wiki translation people to translate the article for you. The sense of the paragraph you're trying to summarize is that the Op-ed doesn't think there's a conspiracy, rather an overreaction. Your summary complete changes what Graf is trying to say. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Do not use a machine translation on this, the machine translations are confusing. Relevant passage: Angesichts der gleichzeitigen Berichte wittern viele #GamerGate-Anhänger eine Verschwörung, sie klagen, man wolle ihre Pressekritik mit einer Schmutzkampagne ersticken. Dieser Eindruck ist nachvollziehbar, an eine Kampagne glauben wir aber nicht, sondern einfach an eine komplette Überreaktion. Eine Überreaktion auf die Überreaktion vieler Spieler auf die Überreaktion eines betrogenen Ex-Freundes. Die Spielebranche als Pulverfass. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Or find some other source for the point you're trying to make. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I'm misusing the source here, he clearly says that GG supporters saw it as evidence of a conspiracy. We can add something more if you want though, maybe something like "Michael Graf of GameStar wrote that Gamergate supporters saw the publication of these op-eds as evidence of a conspiracy to stifle their criticism, he disagreed with that conclusion, seeing them instead as an overreaction." — Strongjam (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Only so he can say the doesn't believe that, and that the whole thing is an overreaction. You're changing the point he's making in his own OP-ED. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I can't read it, so I'll just let someone who can figure out how best to use it. — Strongjam (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I doubt the value of adding this source, this is the second time that in an effort to reduce the verboseness that Graf's opinion has been mostly reversed in meaning. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: I agree with your changes. For the most part, I see it as an attempt to make the point of that paragraph brief and more adequate. Meşteşugarul - U 12:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I have my concerns. The consistent narrative throughout this whole long term dispute at this article is about the majority/preponderance of sources being about a certain topic. Then, time and time again, we seem to be actively diminishing or removing sources and claims that run counter to the "established" narrative, thus "proving" the narrative true as a result because, hey, look at the articles we use in the article. When it comes to this specific article, is the reason we're removing it due to the language it's in? If so, that's an exceptionally poor reason to do so, as we appear to have a credible translation, or at least a credible way to summarize. Is it something else? Long and short, I'm concerned about the removal of otherwise good sources that may help flesh out what this topic is actually about right now, and this seems like a prime candidate for assisting in improving this article to better reflect what's going on. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed it because I can't read it and can't credible summarize it, what I thought was a fair summation was challenged. I think it can be used, just not by me. Perhaps we can go back to the previous usage "Gamergate supporters saw the publication of these op-eds as evidence of a conspiracy to stifle their criticism of the press with a smear campaign; Michael Graf of GameStar described this impression as understandable, but not credible, and he said that the op-eds were probably just journalists overreacting to the initial events, which he described as many gamers overreacting in turn to the overreaction of an ex-boyfriend." @ForbiddenRocky:? — Strongjam (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The Graf's main point here is that he thinks it's an overreaction of some sort; which he states as a counter to the idea that there was a smear campaign. When you just include the first sentence summary, you lose the sense of what Graf is saying. But if you include just his main point, it makes no sense without the thing he's countering. So if you include the longer passage, you get what looks like UNDUE. This is not easy to use. There must be some other source that includes the idea in Strongjam's attempted summary. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

We do have this "They also point to a series of editorials by different writers that claimed “gamers are over,” starting with an article by freelance writer Leigh Alexander for Gamasutra. GamerGaters claim this is more proof of the conspiracy, and that they were trying to shout down their audience. Of course, this is more baloney." — Wasilka, Jordan (November 13, 2014). "GamerGate—righteous riot or misogynist movement?". Westman Journal. Brandon, Manitoba.. Maybe we could combine the two into a couple of sentence? — Strongjam (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... That entire article is a longer version of Graf's paragraph. You have to include the claim and the counter to keep the intent of the intent of the author. And if you do that, it looks like another strawman by proxy kinda thing. Why have a counter to a claim that can't stand alone? You really need something that stands alone as a RS for the claim. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to claim that there was a conspiracy just that GG supporters saw a conspiracy. I think we should also include the commentary that this is viewed as not credible, or "baloney". It's an example of one of GG's conspiracy theories that we talk about but never detail in the article. — Strongjam (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the value, but per your and Thargor Orlando's thinking, include it. But have to keep the intent of the authors that they don't think the conspiracy is real. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's examine the quote: They also point to a series of editorials by different writers that claimed “gamers are over,” starting with an article by freelance writer Leigh Alexander for Gamasutra. GamerGaters claim this is more proof of the conspiracy, and that they were trying to shout down their audience. Of course, this is more baloney. It has 2 logical components: the first is a statement of fact to the best of the author's knowledge (as Strongjam touched on above): "here is what GG believes." The second is the author's opinion of that belief: "I think they're wrong." Note that critical distinction. We don't have two opinions: side X says "there is a conspiracy" and side Y says "there isn't -- we have a fact: "side X believes there's a conspiracy" and side Y is of the opinion "there isn't." Fact and opinion.

IMHO, the fundamental problem with the GG article and our use of sources is that we give fact and opinion equal weight. Opinions change, facts should not, which is why encyclopedias focus on fact.

A number of fresh eyes have noted we don't sufficiently explain what's motivated GG in this months-long campaign. Here we have a chance to, with a quote that goes to the heart of it, and we're debating whether to eliminate it entirely or water it down with opinion. As long as we continue to weight fact and opinion equally this article will be little more than a battle of opinion. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to include the opinion to make it clear that it's a WP:FRINGE theory. — Strongjam (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorta true. It's a fact that some people think their opinion about what GG is about is true. It's a fact that other people disagree with that opinion. The existence of a conspiracy is not fact. I'm not convinced putting this many opinions into the entry is right. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that second fact is one level removed. I've confused things with my fact vs opinion distinction. Let my try again:

The more subjective the claim the higher the standard we hold sources to; for example, wikipedia policy acknowledges a distinction between expert opinion and non-expert opinion and avoids claims of moral judgement. I'll assume we're agreed on this point, so lets examine the subjectivity of each of these claims:

1. GG believes this was a coordinated effort. How would a source determine this? They'd look at any number of sites where GGers congregate and read what they claim, easy to do, non-controversial, little subjectivity and the writer doesn't have to be an expert in any field or even familiar with the details of GG to simply read what's posted on reddit or 8chan.
2. It was not a coordinated effort. How would a source determine this? They should speak to the authors of each of the published articles and verify they had no discussions with authors of similar articles prior to publication. But perhaps the authors were directed by their editors-in-chief to write these articles, so while they were coordinated. the authors were completely unaware. To be certain then a source should speak to the EICs of these publications and verify their efforts were not coordinated. Are there other levels of hierarchy between EIC and author where and effort might have been coordinated? One would have to be familiar with the inner workings of each of these publications to say for certain, but if so, the source should also speak to each of them, at each publication. Only then could a source reliably claim the articles were not coordinated. The above requires significant effort, it relies on the truthfulness of authors, editors and potential in-betweens and it requires knowledge of the internal workings of each publication.

My previous point (hopefully now more clearly illustrated) is that a source claiming (2) should be held to a much higher standard than a source claiming (1); further, the article should avoid or give less weight to claims similar to (2) which necessitate either significant speculation, unless expressed by an expert in the field, or significant research, unless such effort is suggested. This is not new policy or a novel interpretation of existing policy -- it is the standard to which sources in every well-written article on wikipedia are held, except, inexplicably, where Gamergate is concerned. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Except point #2 has a lot of RS support. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"We parrot the majority view of RSs without regard for context, subjectivity or expertise" is not a policy I'm familiar with. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Huh? You stipulated there should be reliable sources. And there are. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we're unbalanced right now, so a whole paragraph wouldn't really be undue in this case. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well per Strongjam's comment, I'll go along with "we should also include the commentary that this is viewed as not credible". But can we not use the German source? I've already had two go arounds trying to explain what the translated passage was about. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think it is most important to have an accurate translation for any source that is used or we could be misrepresenting the author's argument. This just echoes what you've been saying already but I think it's important...we can't play with the language so it says what anyone wants it to say. Unfortunately, my German is from graduate school and is pretty rusty. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a list of translators for Wikipedia Wikipedia:Translators_available#German-to-English. The machine translation of that passage is terrible. And translating just one sentence from that paragraph removes a ton of context that changes the meaning. I figured people should get their own translations done, since I was arguing for mine. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Avono: Pinging Avono because he is a german speaker.Bosstopher (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Avono added this originally, FWIW. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Which would make this person's input all the more useful. Meşteşugarul - U 20:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Source for the effects of Gamergate

This op-ed – Goldberg, Michelle (February 20, 2015). "Feminist writers are so besieged by online abuse that some have begun to retire". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 20, 2015. – talks about the effects of things like Gamergate are starting to cause feminists to retire from writing. Maybe usable in our article to talk about the effects of Gamergate. — Strongjam (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Only skimmed through but there doesn't seem to be much focus on Gamergate, the main case of a woman retiring from games jouranlism due to Gamergate is Jenn Frank, and that's mentioned in the article. Seems useful for an article on online harassment, which I have only just noticed does not exist. Anyone here up for a fun and collaborative effort? Bosstopher (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You should probably gather existing articles first, I think that could work as a category, albeit a small one. doxing and swatting come to mind. HalfHat 18:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Pew Report on Online Harassment is an invaluable resource, especially as it looks into gender differences in online harassment. I believe it's used as a source in this article but it really focuses on all kinds of harassment such as in comments sections of articles and message boards. It's a great read, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Latest Wu addition

This was reverted, citing that it somehow puts blame on the studio. Apparently we're allowed to put blame on the organizers, but putting neutral language concerning the state of the disagreement is not. I honestly don't get this change at all. And to be clear, the idea that security isn't sufficient is not in the piece, and certainly is not supported by the source in any way. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In writing about Giant Spacekat withdrawing from the Expo Hall of PAX East, I wrote 'and the lack of sufficient security.' as one of the reasons Wu cited for the decision. You rewrote this to 'and the inability of the studio to reach an agreeable security arrangement with PAX.' This wording is specifically placing blame on the studio- it being the studio's inability to reach an agreement in this particular phrasing. Our source doesn't phrase things this way. Wu is quoted in the article as saying "I called them on three occasions trying to talk to them about security concerns, and did not have my calls returned," and if I were attempting to slant things against the organizers my wording would have pointed at this lack of communication. Instead I used phrasing I believed to be frank and neutral- 'lack of sufficient security'. An alternate suggestion if you are unhappy with this is 'and concerns with the security at the event.' I'd like to request that other editors pitch in on what they believe the wording should be- I'd be happy to hear if my wording was agreeable, or if a happy compromise could be reached. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence the security was insufficient, nor was it actually claimed. You've introduced a falsehood into the article, and you should probably revert yourself for that reason alone, never mind that your concern with casting blame on the studio doesn't seem to apply to the organizers/venue/convention. By noting that an arrangement couldn't be reached (true and neutral, it casts no blame), it keeps it within the realm of fact. "Concerns with security" is better, but outright does what you're trying not to do with the studio, and outright casts blame by implying that, again, it's a problem with PAX. Thargor Orlando (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking for 'evidence' one way or another would be original research, Thagor. Again: I believe my wording is fairly neutral, but am open to alternatives. To paraphrase what I've written: "Brianna Wu cited a lack of sufficient security as a reason to withdraw from PAX East's Expo Hall". This is supported very clearly by the article we have as a reliable source. What you read into my writing is, I believe, not what most would. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No, as the article does not support that, nor does Wu, actually. You're also incorrect about it being "original research," as the claim that the security is not "sufficient" is whre the OR comes in. I don't need to read into anything, the text is fairly clear. Thargor Orlando (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In very plain language, from the article, "In a public statement, Wu said that the decision to withdraw from the Expo Hall comes from concern that, due to the sheer volume of crowds at PAX East, "the safety of our team can not be guaranteed."". Wu also talks about her attempts to contact the organizers due to safety concerns. I do not believe she is concerned that there is too much security. Does the article use my exact wording? No. Does the article say the Wu was concerned about her team not being safe? Yes. Could this reasonably be phrased as 'the security was not sufficient'? Yes. We're on the same team here, Thagor. You don't have to argue with every decision I make- I've looked harder at my wording because of your concerns, and I cannot conceivably see how you can say the article does not support the phrasing I've used. Could we please agree on something? I'd really rather you not extend this simply solved discussion too far. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't consider your language reasonable here. This isn't about you, this is about the edit you made, and it's one that made the article worse and introduced a falsehood. DHeyward's change is acceptable to me, and if the words "the studio" were really the only problem, then hopefully this sorts it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the edit to the article, DHeyward. I truly hope that Thagor finds this sufficient- these back and forths drain me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No, UseR:DHeyward's edit doesn't fix the problem. Agreement/disagreement implies two parties - If I ask who the other party is other than PAX, the way things are constructed, the answer is the studio. That still puts the blame on the studio. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That's how agreements work. The source has a response to Wu that it is safe. I think it's less wordy to say an agrement wasn't reached without saying either are at fault. The other route is to have it as you described for Wu and add PAXs response about security. The reality is that Wu and/or LE hasn't been able to identify who is making the threats so she has no restraining order to exclude anyone. This is also Boston and security will include bomb sniffing dogs, metal detectors, bag restrictions, etc. They also aren't going to divulge all the security arrangements to exhibitors or the press. Wu doesn't articulate what action PAX didn't take and lacks NPOV to make the claim that security is inadequate when PAX has its own statement. --DHeyward (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC).

I'm not sure why we don't just say she has security concerns. The PAX response, or perceived lack of, doesn't help the reader much really and seems to be taking sides. — Strongjam (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Saying she has security concerns implies that PAX is unwilling or unable to address them, and casts blame the same way PeterTheFourth believes that I was casting blame on the studio. By using neutral language, we can simply say that the security situation could not be handled by both parties and not have this problem at all. Unfortunately, NPOV language has been repeatedly reverted so far, so I'm not even sure where to go from here. This little kerfuffle is a great example of the continued problem with the editing on this article and the NPOV problems inherent within. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

the facts of the matter, however, DO lay the responsibility of not responding to Wu's concerns on PAX's non responsiveness. to pretend otherwise is inappropriately representing the facts as they appear in the source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, Wu's claims, at least. The facts are not clear, we only have claims. Your edits intentionally and inappropriately take a side, we don't do that here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

We're not taking sides, we're reporting the reliable sources. We cannot and should not assign 'sides' to reliable sources and use this to determine how we source them, we merely look to how relevant what they say is and how often reliable sources say this. You see this kerfuffle as representative of issues on this article- does the fact that you have created and maintained this kerfuffle at all strike you as pertinent? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The reliable sources do not say that PAX has insufficient security, as you edited into the article. You're right that we shouldn't assign "sides," so why keep doing it? Help make the section and the article neutral instead of blaming me for the failures of the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That edit is fine it's saying she cited insufficient security as a reason, not that there was insufficient security. — Strongjam (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Which also isn't really what she said. Maybe we just need to quote her directly at this point, since NPOV arguments aren't working. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

the edit in question is no longer what the article says. so if your quibble was about the particular wording of that edit, i believe we are done. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, what I linked to was a direct response to someone regarding a broader issue with the section. My specific issue with the section remains, as we're not handling this, or much of anything in this article, appropriately or within project policy. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You do not own the article, Thagor. You're going to have to learn when to stop arguing with others. I earnestly encourage you to consider the length and tenacity with which you have argued against such a minor addition to the article, and even now are arguing with editors even while you have your own wording in place. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) If your claim is the same as at the start, which appears to be that our article content is inappropriately " put blame on the organizers, " you will need to demonstrate that we are not appropriately representing what the source says. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have done so, so this is a moot request. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I see only one editor who has an issue understanding what I've written, Thagor. This immense quote you've inserted does not aid the article. I'm going to ask you to please step back from this issue. It is very minor, and it seems you are engaging in point making behaviour with the edit you've included. This article does not need such consternation, nor such a largely undue addition. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Really, the whole paragraph is sort of tacked on, and I would favor removal, but if we're going to add in such minutae, then we need to handle it in a NPOV way. If you read other articles, you'll see that this is a normal way to handle it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Without unshakeable evidence, we cannot assert or imply that there is any doubt of the legitimacy of Wu’s concerns. First, she is the CEO and this is her business, which she is assumed to know. Second, no reliable source has given any indication at all that a reasonable and prudent employer would have no reason for concern. Third, we all know of the YouTube video threats and the subsequent restraining order, both well reported; there is absolutely no call to insinuate that any doubt exists. The natural interpretation of the facts before us is that Wu’s firm sought security assurances with which the host was unable to comply, either because of venue logistics, cost, or considerations of liability. Any other interpretation seems uncomfortably close to yesterday’s BLP-violation at Brianna Wu’s page, which I believe was a repeat from a few days ago. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Wait, restraining order? Do we have RS for that? Should be in the article if we do. Or at least her bio. Edit: Found it in an essay of Wu's but no RS's. If anyone has an RS for that let me know, it would be useful. — Strongjam (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec)She tweeted it, and has posted on Huffington on her own, but no reliable third party sources of it as of yet that I've seen. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

How about this article from VentureBeat? Not sure on reliability, but we use VentureBeat twice in the article already. Kaciemonster (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It still would have to be attributed directly to her, there's no independent verification. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That article doesn't attribute it to her. If we used that as a source neither would we. — Strongjam (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The article absolutely attributes it to her. The relevant paragraph starts "As described in her recent post..." Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

PAX may not have responded to Wu but they did responde to Polygon:

Update: A Penny Arcade representative responded to Polygon with the following:

The safety of our attendees, panelists and exhibitors is the number one priority for PAX. To achieve this, the show:

Conducts bag searches for all people entering the building Has Boston PD in addition to the in house Building Security on site during all hours of the show Enforces the six rules of PAX at every event, since the very first PAX

For the safety of our attendees, exhibitors and panelists we cannot divulge the specifics of our security programs. That said, the well-being of everyone attending PAX always has been and always will be the highest priority for the city of Boston, the convention center and PAX. ​

PAX prides itself on helping tens of thousands of gamers come together to share what they love most, in a safe environment.​​

They link to the six rules of PAX here [2]. Harassment is forbidden in the six rules. I don't think it's fair to PAX or neutral to imply they didn't meet security concerns. Wu doesn't explain why the 6 rules of PAX are inadequate in any way or detail so to imply that they are puts PAX in a false light. The same argument the we should defer to Wu on her business implies we should defer to a security organization about security. --DHeyward (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense to me. PAX issued some boilerplate about security in response to a request for comment. How does this negate, clarify or disprove anything being discussed here at all? drseudo (t) 23:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It provides some context, especially given the accusations levied. It was worthy enough of note that Polygon sought and posted the response, so clearly reliable sources see it as a relevant point of clarification, as do I. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Polygon sought and posted the response as an act of journalistic due diligence. We are WP:NOTNEWS, so we're not obligated to print everything a news source would, and vice versa. drseudo (t) 01:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Context and clarification of what? It's a very generic, non-specific, "We take X very seriously" statement. It doesn't add anything to the article. — Strongjam (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Context and clarification of the security situation that Wu speaks of. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It neither contextualizes nor clarifies "the security situation that Wu speaks of." Rather, it creates the impression that Wu's concerns about security were groundless, an impression that is not supported by any RS. drseudo (t) 01:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Wu doesn't contextualize or clarify her comments, either. Either use neutral language or include the response. Polygon published it for a reason. Wu isn't more notable on PAX security that the PAX security people and we shouldn't presume that she is. --DHeyward (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Polygon published the response for a reason: because they are a news outlet. We are not. If a boilerplate response about security doesn't enhance the article, we can—and should—leave it out. drseudo (t) 02:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. In this case, it absolutely enhances the article by giving the proper context to the claims being made. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Journalists give notable viewpoints space. So do we. And yes, it adds as much to the article as Wu's stated reason about pulling out. Same as the University of Utah speech pullout out by Sarkeesian. We published Sarkeesian's reasoning and the response by those that are experts in security. --DHeyward (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, 1) journalism has a different purpose than encyclopedia coverage and 2) What exactly does PAX's non-comment which doesnt name either Wu or GG have to do with the subject of this encyclopedia article because 3) merely being verifiable does not mandate inclusion? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

In the end, we should just word the phrase in a way that lends respect to both PAX and Wu. PAX's boilerplate response is still a response. Wu's concerns are still valid nonetheless, but they are — as with any other person's concerns — based on one's own personal perception. Meşteşugarul - U 08:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Which is what I tried to do at the beginning. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional Press/Media Coverage of this article

I am new to wikipedia as such I am not 100% Certain how to write these additional press/media coverage(Are these valid coverages?).

• Tech News World (Mostly the banning and article)
• (Redacted) TechRaptor (Speaks broadly about various controversial changes about the article in question)
• Think Progress.org (Speaks about the GamerGate Article.WP:Unreliable Source?)
• Inquisitr (Speaks about the article and the banning, WP:Ureliable Sources?)
• Reaxxion (Gaming Site speaking about the wikipedia article, WP:Unreliable Source?)
• Digital Journal (Links directly to the article)
• Pop Matters (Talks about the article)

Are these qualifiable on Press/media Coverage or is that for the bigger "Overall" press/media outlets(CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN etc etc)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealVordox (talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 February 2015‎ (UTC)

TechRaptor isn't a reliable source I've redacted the URL as it contains negative BLP content. — Strongjam (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Negative content about whom? I've read the article and see no BLP violations, maybe I'm missing it. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The article singles out a couple Wikipedia editors, current and former. — Strongjam (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Haven't bothered to look at the other ones, but Reaxxion is a ralphretort tier unreliable source.Bosstopher (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

For additional coverage of the Wikipedia Arbcom aftermath, I've been maintaining a press list here: [3]. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This is great! Thank you! TheRealVordox (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The Pop Matters link is a lot of opinion upfront, and then a lot of philosophy of knowledge at the backend. Not sure how to incorporate that. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Are the left Vs. right politics really relevant to this article

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.

---

Here is the quote "Gamergate has frequently been described as involving anti-feminist ideologies.[78] Some supporters have denied this label, but acknowledge that there are misogynistic voices within it.[12][64][66][79][80][81] Commentators have otherwise been divided over its political characterization. Jon Stone, in The Guardian, called it "a swelling of vicious right-wing sentiment" and compared it to the men's rights movement.[79] Cathy Young, writing for Reason, described Gamergate supporters as leaning left-libertarian, but said that it has been supported by right wing voices.[29] Commentators such as Jon Stone, Liana Kerzner, Ryan Cooper, and Erik Kain have said that the controversy is being "exploited" by these right-wing voices and by conservative pundits who had little interest in gaming beforehand.[32][79][82][83]" I don't think that the political affiliation of either side is relevant as video-games are hardly a political issue, and anti-Feminism and misogyny aren't the same so the first sentence of this statement is quite misleading. I could be wrong (concerning the relevance of the political aspects as I thought that this was about ethics in journalism so the left Vs. right comparison would be out of place on a non-political article) and if so please tell me why this comparison should remain. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

as a manifestation of the culture war, gamergate's primary marker of note after harassment, the culture war's placement within the broader culture is relevant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This is, at least, adequately sourced and speaks directly to the point that we don't really know where the political sentiment lies. I think "anti-social justice" might be a better term (and we have sources! [4] [5]), but this isn't the worst part of the article right now. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

¿Culture war against whom? It's not a culture war against women as I have seen them on both sides, nor against Feminism, Conservatism, the M.(H.)R.M., or any group mentioned here, I wonder if by claiming it to be a culture war we might be giving undue weight to one side of the story as opposed to others, but if plenty of sources state that the political aspects are important, and since it's neutral in clarifying that both sides belong to both spectra of the left-right paradigm I'd say that this particular statement in neutral, but the sentence doesn't explain "how" it's being compared to the Men's (Human) Rights Movement for example, it could use a number of improvements.

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't rely on what you've seen. We go by the reliable sources. If you have specific suggestions to improve the article, please go ahead and make them.drseudo (t) 16:50, 23 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.

Quick question

Should we be including a link to the Journalism Portal in 'See Also'? As far as I've seen, Gamergate doesn't really have much to do with journalism. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if Gamergate's ethics concerns are frequently dismissible, they still launched massive and effective mailing campaigns against the advertisers of publications they dislike. This is given a substantial mention in the article, which means that journalism is a substantial aspect of the topic.Bosstopher (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough- was wondering in what context it could be linked, but that's more than reasonable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)