Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Here's Why the Lead Sucks

(before we begin I want to apologize for the length of this comment -- brevity has never been a strength of mine)

The first sentence is objectively terrible. I don’t know how it got this way, but it needs some serious attention. The entire lead is bad, sure, but the first sentence is particularly rotten.

For starters, the concept of an anonymous, leaderless movement is not new or unique. I mean hell, look at that, there’s an entire article dedicated to the idea. And yet everyone who has touched the lead has been flummoxed when attempting to succinctly describe Gamergate in a balanced fashion. So rather than attempt to describe Gamergate, the lead immediately engages and defines Gamergate as "a controversy regarding sexism." How on earth is that describing anything? It's doing nothing but begging the question. Gamergate is not the name of the controversy -- it is the name of the hashtag attached to the self-described consumer movement that became immediately controversial when it was associated with a campaign of harassment against several individuals in the video game industry. Describing it as "a controversy regarding sexism" is akin to describing Watergate as: "a political scandal regarding the Nixon administration's attempted cover-up of its involvement in the scandal." Do you see anthing missing?

"Regarding" is also a terrible, ambiguous, ridiculously-passive word choice. Behold, another poorly re-written lead in the style of the Gamergate article: "The Westboro Baptist Church is a controversy regarding homophobia in American culture." It's terrible writing and you should all be ashamed.

I'm joking. I love you all. Seriously. The "History" section is actually very well written, as is most of the meat of the article. The lead just does a terrible job of introducing and summarizing the article content, which is its ONE job.

Here’s how I propose we fix it: we must identify and define Gamergate in the opening sentence. I know it's possible, because pretty much every journalist who has written about Gamergate has managed to do so.

Those reliable sources seem to agree that Adam Baldwin coined the name Gamergate on twitter when he tweeted links to two YouTube videos posted by the user InternetAristocrat. I will pick that as the jumping-off point for the term Gamergate (you could start with the harassment of Saarkesian and Quinn or the so-called Zoe Post, but I'll focus on the inception of the hashtag since this article relates primarily to the hashtag and its resulting controversy rather than the individuals going into detail about the individuals being harassed). Admittedly I have not watched the videos linked in the initial tweet (they’ve been removed), though I have seen them described in reliable sources, and while they were undoubtedly sexist in tone the videos were described as having little to do with "sexism in video game culture." The sources describe the videos as being critical of the progressive voice of the video game press. The videos also apparently discussed alleged ethical violations following the disclosure of a relationship between designer Zoe Quinn and video game journalist Nathan Grayson. In my mind, at least initially, Gamergate was engaging equally in both sexism (its criticism of the progressive voice of the gaming press and the harassing elements) and ethics (concerns over the Quinn/Grayson relationship).

Moving on. To answer a frequently asked question: Do the reliable sources describe Gamergate as a "movement?" The answer: Absolutely. Gamergate is described primarily as a movement in nearly every source I reviewed. I can post a long list of quotes if you like, but instead I would invite you to pick any article from my list of 20 highly-reliable sources about Gamergate, CTRL-F the word "movement", and read. Movement is used a total of 55 times in all of those articles (for those that are curious, "controversy" is used 16 times, "sexism" 20 times; "misogyny" 31 times; "campaign" 36 times, "ethics" 43 times; "culture" 51 times; "harass" 68 times) so you should have plenty to choose from. Further, describing something as a movement is not a value judgment in any way. Movement is a neutral word, attributed to both terrible things and positive things. Movements do not require leaders, a specific goal, or the ability to identify supporters. The only requirement is to have "a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas." Or maybe "a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal." Gamergate easily fits those two definitions, as is evidenced by word being used in numerous reliable sources. Okay, fine. Here are two examples:

• "Columbia Journalism Review "At core, the movement is a classic culture war."

• "The Guardian But this may not be the case for '#gamergate', an online movement started in August as a harassment campaign against a little-known indie game developer which has now widened to include nearly all games industry feminists as its target."

Another question: is the Gamergate movement ever described as being interested in ethics by the reliable sources? I will only select a handful of sources, but of the 20 sources I identified earlier, nearly every one used the concept of "ethics" when describing the movement, albeit often with heavy qualification:

• Christian Science Monitor "Whether the crux of Gamergate is ethics in video game journalism or misogyny among gamers continues to spark heated debate online."

• Washington Post "Last week, I wrote about the Entertainment Software Association's reaction to 'Gamergate' -- the months-long culture war over gender and ethics in the gaming industry."

• The New Yorker "The Gamergate hashtag has been used more than a million times on Twitter, for myriad purposes. Some denounce harassment but consider the tag a demand for better ethical practices in video-game journalism, including more objective reporting and a removal of politics from criticism. (Never mind that Gamergate itself is awash in politics). Critics see Gamergate as a hate movement, born of extremists, which has grown by providing a sense of belonging, self-worth, and direction to those experiencing crisis or disaffection."

• New York Times "The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage."

• Time "Their inquiry, passed around Twitter under the deeply sincere hashtag '#GamerGate', alleges that writing op-eds about colleagues and peers is unethical, that a list of people who attended an academic conference together is proof of a conspiracy, and that any critic who pursues creators and projects that interest them is cynically promoting their friends. Some of them admit they’re afraid that "social justice warriors" will ruin video games."

These sources all touch on both aspects of Gamergate when defining it -- a self-described consumer movement (by proponents) or a sexist harassment campaign (by critics). By presenting only one definition, it's not only a misuse of reliable sources, it demonstrates blatant disregard to any semblance of neutrality. The ethical aspect cannot be considered undue if it is covered in nearly every single reliable source. In fact, I would argue that it is undue to specifically exclude that facet of the controversy in the lead.

Now let's discuss the word "controversy." In order to have a controversy, one must describe the involved parties. To use the example of two better-written opening sentences, the MMR vaccine controversy "centers on the 1998 publication of a fraudulent research paper in the medical journal The Lancet." Or the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy "began after the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 editorial cartoons on 30 September 2005, most of which depicted Muhammad."

Now, let’s rewrite those leads in the terrible fashion deployed in the Gamergate article. "The MMR vaccine controversy is a controversy related to fraud in medical research." Or "The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy is a certain thing centering on being vaguely reminiscent and tangentially related to the general concepts surrounding the ideas expressed in the notions of censorship, religious tolerance, blasphemy, and freedom of speech in culture." Hopefully you get the idea.

Of course one aspect that I need to respect is the idea that Gamergate is largely responsible for the harassing, doxxing, swatting, misogynying and hurt feelings happening to those involved in the controversy, because that’s what the reliable sources say. I understand that the bulk of the reliable sources have been deeply critical of Gamergate, but I think we can still reflect the critical tone in the opening sentence while actually providing useful summarizing information to the reader.

But I’m not here to moan and complain and stamp my feet. No sir (or madam), I’m here to build a goddamn encyclopedia, damn you all, so I want to attempt to find consensus and fix this awful lead in a way that will make absolutely everyone happy, which is a completely realistic and attainable goal. Right? Heck yeah. Let’s do this shit.

Here are a few alternatives I wrote to get the ball rolling. Not to brag or anything, but I think they’re all better than that steaming pile of crap currently leading the article:

1. Gamergate is a consumer movement that has been associated with threats and harassment directed at several women in the video game industry, igniting what has been described as a "classic culture war." (put CJR reference here, OH NO!)
2. Gamergate is a controversial hashtag movement that gained significant attention and notoriety after several women in the video game industry were harassed and threatened by Gamergate supporters.
3. The Gamergate controversy describes the threats and harassment directed at several women in the video game industry, coordinated and perpetrated by members of a self-described consumer movement operating under the hashtag #Gamergate.

I mean, the lead will probably have to be rewritten entirely, but I wanted to take the baby step of just addressing the first awful sentence that has remained relatively unchanged for months. Can we at least all agree that it's terrible in its present state? Or do some of you actually like it? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

100% agree. I realize I am new to this page, but the opening sentence is what brought me here in the first place. The lead *is* terrible. I have yet to find *anyone* (reliable sources, wikipedia editors, bloggers, journalists, op-ed's) refer to Gamergate as a "controversy". As I mentioned before, it reflects poorly on wikipedia. I think the problem is so may editors here have been working on the article for so long, they refuse to take a step back and look at things objectively. I suggested a change to the opening sentence and the discussion was immediately hatted. I don't understand why. In any event, I think "controversial movement" is accurate, reflected in Reliable Sources, and notable. Marcos12 (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Deja vue all over all over again! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Didn't we just close a thing about movement? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the lead sentence is fine. But at the very least write a new sentence, and then see how that goes. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Consumer movement - Majority RS do not support this ForbiddenRocky (talk)

WP:NOTFORUM, off-topic. Dreadstar ☥ 19:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Also, "steaming pile of crap" etc. is not very civil. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I can call a sentence any number of horrible things, because the sentence is not a person. Reading this policy page might help you understand. WP:CIVIL. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and accuse that sentence of murdering my parents, because it might as well have done so. That's how terrible it is. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Previous consensus on not calling it a movement. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC) here's the previous consensus before that one. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I just don't understand the editors here. Just because this article has been around since September and there are dozens of pages of archives, we have new editors participating every day. Consider the evidence and the argument presented, don't just shut it down. Here the editor out, stop thinking in terms of us vs. them or "the enemy". People in good faith could have valid suggestions about changing the lead and I think they should be considered without suspecting them of ulterior motives or just dismissing them because a similar argument occurred in the past.

And it's a red herring to say a conversation on this was just closed, there was an RfC about a requested move than voted not to move the article and change the title, that's not what the OP is suggesting at all. Are the points of view here so entrenched that reasonable requests to revisit sections of the article can't be considered? Wikipedia is not written on stone tablets and, at some point, the lead will be rewritten in the future. Why not try to improve it rather than holding fast to a section that is seriously considered lacking and NPOV by a large number of editors and readers? I'm just talking about revision here, not a revolution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well said. Given the repeated arrival of readers with similar concerns we have to ask ourselves whether we're writing this article for the handful of editors familiar with the "million words of talk page discussion", to whom the article makes perfect sense, or the rest of the public to whom it apparently does not? I'd think that if for whatever reason we're unable to write an article that informs the uninformed the encyclopedia would be better with no article at all. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• object unless someone can summarize a specific concrete proposal for change, this section is little more than stale talking past each other. Hipocrite (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hipocrite:Hmm. This makes me think that perhaps you didn't read my original comment in its entirety, particularly the part where I wrote three alternative opening sentences. I don't think it gets more concrete than that. I think the third one in particular is the best. What do you think? I don't think a bolded "object" is a particularly concrete comment, as it's not entirely clear what you're objecting to. Are you objecting to further discussion? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I point to previous consensus to point out that there are already arguments against this change from only a week ago. Many of the arguments are the same ones from last week and the one before. New evidence is evaluated all the time here. But some of these arguments are old old old. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@ColorOfSuffering:: the "movement" itself is the subject of very few articles, if any. Virtually all reliable sources are about the events and people involved. In short, the controversy. You mentioned the Watergate scandal, which is an apt analogy. That article is virtually all about the events and people: the scandal. Keep in mind that there wasn't a Watergate "movement", just some people dubbed the "Watergate Seven", which we happen to have an article on only because they were caught and subsequently received widespread coverage in the press. On the other hand, sources struggle to define the Gamergate movement. They can't point to anyone responsible. And they can't point to any official goals or statements, other than "this person who claims to be a supporter said X". And yes, that comes with "heavy qualification", because reliable sources find those goals and statements to be misplaced and diversionary. To make a long story short (too late), per UNDUE we won't be rewriting the article to highlight something that reliable sources overwhelmingly dismiss. Woodroar (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Woodroar:I respectfully disagree. The movement is the subject of many articles, and it is discussed at length in most of the articles I have read. This is very similar to the Westboro Baptist Church. The church is only notable for picketing funerals (in the same way that Gamergate is only notable for the harassment and threats), and yet we still acknowledge that it is a church, and many articles have been written about the church. Here are a few examples of articles written about Gamergate: [1][2][3]. To your other points, I used Watergate not as a parallel to the article, but to point out how rotten the lead is. Watergate was about the attempted burglary and the coverup by the Nixon administration. But if you leave out the part about the burglary, all you have is the coverup of a thing that was never defined. That's what's happening in the current Gamergate lead. There's a controversy, but the subjects of the controversy are never mentioned, so all the reader has is a vague notion that video games and sexism is involved. As I mentioned in my original post, it's begging the question. Hard. And sources do not struggle to define the Gamergate movement. Every article does it, and most of the good sources do it well. And as I mentioned, it's not undue to discuss something (ethics) that is mentioned in the lead of nearly every single article written on the topic. Even if it's "dismissed" (I don't agree with that characterization, but that's another discussion) the aspect is covered extensively; to the point that it's intrinsic to the story. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't agree with most of what you said in this post, but I think the 3rd alternative is a good, descriptive rewrite and would support that change. Kaciemonster (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

We just had this discussion (twice, if you count the move request that pretty much died under WP:SNOW.) I'll repeat some of what I said there: Going over the article's sources, there are a lot that don't cover the subject, in particular, as a movement, including here, here, here, here, here, and here, just to start. And this one describes it as a 'movement' in scare quotes, showing that they find the descriptor controversial. Many of them cover it as a hashtag, as a mob, as an event, and so on, while many others emphasize that they have trouble categorizing it or describing exactly what it is. I feel that 'controversy' adequately unifies all of this coverage without discarding any of it, while trying to make it universally a 'movement' within article text would implicitly downplay the sources I linked and many like them (many of which are some of the highest-quality sources we have in the article, in terms of both WP:RS and prominence.) Though I dislike rigidly dividing sources up according to this distinction, even the sources that I would roughly characterize as 'favorable' to Gamergate clearly seem to characterize it as a controversy (describing it as an issue with two sides, or as an ongoing culture war, or in similar terms.) Beyond that, I would point out that the current lead is the result of extensive discussions and consensus-building by a huge number of people; while consensus can change, I feel that the current lead is very well-written and generally does an excellent job of giving a quick overview for a complicated and often controversial subject, and I don't agree with your broad criticisms of it -- it reflects the coverage of the subject in proportion to its prominence in reliable sources; it's important to understand that we have to weight our coverage based on that. And, finally, it is important to understand that an article's lead must reflect the rest of the article; the current lead does that, while I don't think any of your suggestions would work. --Aquillion (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Aquillion:This is great! Seriously, I'm glad you posted links, because I agree. There are a few articles that specifically do not describe Gamergate as a "movement." Many of those articles were written in September, before the notion of calling it a "movement" was generally accepted. But I see your 6 references (though I'm not too impressed with the Daily Beast article) and raise you 11 references from highly reliable sources (no Daily Beasts in the mix) that specifically call it a "movement." [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] So that's 15 from me calling it a movement. Is that still not convincing? At least you'll have to agree that there is no definitive answer to that question. Further, very few sources describe Gamergate as a "controversy." In fact, I can only find three -- [19][20][21] (and even those article still use the descriptor "movement" in the article space). I agree that controversy is the appropriate article title, and would never in a million years suggest we rename it. However, according to the reliable sources I have posted for you, the Gamergate movement is one of the subjects involved in the controversy -- it is not just the name of the controversy. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

And I would encourage you to look at other controversies to see how those leads are written, because some of them are quite good. They identify the parties of the controversy and explain the dispute. The lead sentence in the Gamergate article is currently so vague that it's almost useless, as I hopefully pointed out in the examples from my original comment. "controversy regarding sexism in video game culture" tells us nothing about the article content, and it does not reflect the vast majority of reliable sources. Plus, it's basically one long Wikilink for the Sexism in video gaming article. If I wanted to read about sexism in video games (and I really do) then I'd go to that article. But I've come to this article to read about the Gamergate controversy. According to the reliable sources, Gamergate is primarily about two things (depending on who you ask): harassment and/or ethics. The fact that neither of those things are mentioned in the opening sentence is just outright madness. The fact that the Gamergate movement isn't named in the opening sentence is also madness. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you "identify" a group of anonymous internet trolls other than calling them a group of anonymous internet trolls? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

An excellent question. My suggestions is that you go to the reliable sources and see how they defined Gamergate. For example, very few of them use the definition of "anonymous internet trolls" to define Gamergate. This one is my favorite, and seems to do a good job of summarizing the movement from some fish-wrapper called the New York Times: "It's a debate about a lot of things and it involves a lot of people, but at its heart, #Gamergate is about two key things: ethics in video game journalism, and the role and treatment of women in the video game industry — an industry that has long been dominated by men.". There are many more to choose from. What source do you use to reach your "anonymous internet trolls" definition? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Or we can use absolutely horrible or incontrovertibly awful or hordes of misogynists ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course you can! If you can justify why the International Business Times, Metro, and Market for Home Computing and Video Games are more reliable sources than the Washington Post, New York Times, The Guardian, and LA Times, and the Boston Globe. I'm more than happy to have that discussion. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think you should read some of the links you posted in more detail! From the last one, for example: "Still, at least one zealous group has formed a nascent Twitter movement to combat what is seen as the increased cultural criticism being applied to video games. It should be noted that the word “movement” is used loosely, as it’s not quite clear what those tweeting with the Gamergate hashtag are after, other than an end to all serious critiques of video games." Many other sources say similar things, making it clear that the designation is indeed controversial and that most journalists struggle to determine how exactly to frame the controversy. (eg. the NewsWeek analysis says "The movement, insofar as a group of people obsessively complaining about something on Twitter deserves to be called a movement"; the fastcodesign analysis says "Gamergate is many different things to many different people, but at its core it is a vicious battle over the future of gaming,"; the CBJ analysis describes it with many different quotes from different people.) These -- unlike the links you grabbed where they use the word in passing -- are actual analysis of what Gamergate is and what it's about, and they almost all agree that it is hard to define beyond it being a huge angry conflict. Even you seem uncertain about how to frame it; I notice that above, you referred to it as a consumer movement, which is absolutely not reflected in your sources -- almost no reliable sources describe it in those terms. I feel that if we tried to identify it precisely we would inevitably end up imposing such personal judgments on what the controversy is really about, which don't reflect the overarching thrust of reliable coverage. We do cover this confusion in depth in the article (which does use the term 'movement' in a few places, where appropriate), but I think that the sources we've collected here make it clear that it would be inappropriate to try and force the use of the term in the lead, to frame the entire subject as "obviously" about a cohesive movement, or to try and divide it up into this-view-vs-that-view. The majority of this reliable coverage (and, indeed, most of the links you provided) therefore seems to me to be covered better by the current lead. --Aquillion (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree! And thank you for reading that dump of sources I gave you. They don't all say the same thing, naturally, and there's quite a lot of disagreement among the sources as to how to properly represent Gamergate. But for the purposes of the lead rewrite there are two things I'm trying to prove -- Gamergate is considered a movement, and Gamergate self-identifies as a "consumer movement" (or some variation thereof). We can cherrypick examples from what I posted, but you must have seen at least some sources calling it a "movement" without judgement or qualification, yes? Maybe you didn't. I can post some of those when I have some more time. Either way, we've had a lovely discussion about this, and I thank you being so civil and reasonable in this discussion. Here's my question: in what way do you think "a controversy regarding sexism in video game culture" does even a remotely decent job of summarizing the article content? It's not a summary at all, it's a vague allusion to the existence of a controversy, which is fairly self-evident insomuch as the article exists. Can't we do a better job? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

except that you have to cherry pick the some of gamergate that identify as consumer anything. some have quite specifically identified themselves by their actions as misogynist trolls. some have identified as "but ethics!" some have identified as "they said bad stuff about us - lets shut them down" some have identified as "No feminazi girls are gonna tell me what i can play" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think the sources you linked (in terms of how they use the term 'movement' and how they characterize its origins, purpose, and goals, to the limited extent that they can) are already addressed in the lead, which goes on to say that "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." What you're trying to say here is that you want to characterize what type of movement it is (you believe that you know how Gamergate self-identifies, and want to put this in the article.) However, we have to base our coverage on reliable sources, which generally don't describe it in that manner, and which don't even seem to agree with you that Gamergate defines itself as a consumer movement. We have many more sources defining it as based around cultural warfare, I think. --Aquillion (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In response to: "Can we at least all agree that it's terrible in its present state? Or do some of you actually like it?" I'm a big fan of the lede! I'm impressed with the editors who have brought it to its current state in what has occasionally been a very adversarial environment. I don't think any of the proposals you have to change the lede reflect our article, and the primary goal of the lede is to summarise the article's content, so I'd oppose your suggestions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I reverted GeorgeLouis's lede change. I don't think it reflects the article at all, and seems to be attempting to severely downplay the significance of the harassment Gamergate has inflicted on people (e.g. changing "sustained campaign of misogynistic attacks" to "harassed and threatened in online postings".) I'll paraphrase my comments on the previous discussion we had about moving it from controversy to movement- without leaders, goals, or any organisational structure, we can't call it a movement. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that call the controversy a "sustained campaign of misogynistic attacks?" That sounds a bit like synthesis to me, but I could be mistaken. Because I have many sources that say the subjects were harassed and threatened in online postings. Here's a random one from the Los Angeles Times: The hateful social media posts, a number of them threatening rape and crippling injury, have been so violent that some intended targets have gone into hiding. Your turn. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeesh. We're on the same team here, buddy. I thought it was pretty commonly accepted that the lede exists to summarise the article below it- we're not going to be summarising very well if we have to perfectly quote articles from our RS's for everything- it's enough to paraphrase in this occasion I'd say. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's also supported by Heron, Belford and Goker which write that it is "misogynist backlash" and a "sustained campaign of gendered harassment". — Strongjam (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

We're on the same team? I didn't know we had teams. Honestly, I think that's part of the problem in editing this article -- that battleground mentality pointed out in the ArbCom where editors picked sides. I have no side. And while the ACM is a lovely organization, I certainly think their findings (which I cannot access at the moment so I can't see the full context) are as reliable as the links I posted earlier from the Washington Post That may surprise those who've seen coverage of the controversy only in relation to violent threats sent to Sarkeesian and to game developers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu after they weighed in on the issue. and the New York Times The threats against Ms. Sarkeesian are the most noxious example of a weekslong campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry and its culture. Heron, Belford and Goker are three voices among many. My point in bringing up the sources is that you cannot demand sources to explicitly state a certain thing (Gamergate is a consumer movement) then turn around and say that we don't need to "perfectly quote" from our reliable sources to say another thing (it's a sustained campaign of misogynistic harassment). ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm on the side that wants to build an educational wikipedia article- call it a figure of speech if you must. Are you confusing me with somebody else? I don't believe I've stated what you're attributing to me- I may have said in the past that our sources don't reflect Gamergate being a consumer movement in the past, but I'd absolutely endorse the idea that our sources reflect that Gamergate is a sustained campaign of misogynistic harassment. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, snap, then we are the on the same team. GO TEAM! And the "consumer movement" issue was actually brought up by different user in this thread, but my response was more addressing the idea you posited for finding "perfectly quote" to fit the lead. Since we're on the same team, I would point out that your reasoning aligns with my reasoning that we should define Gamergate as a consumer movement, or at the very least a "movement." I would say ethical movement, but a different movement already claimed that one. One of my favorite quotes is from the Washington Post, that describes the movement thusly: "But if there's one thing I've learned about Gamergate in the past week, it's this: It's complicated. Gamergate, in some ways, brings to mind two other recent mass movements -- the tea party and Occupy Wall Street. Supporters see it as a consumer movement that's also, essentially, leaderless. That means, they said, that more rational voices who want to talk about ethics in journalism have been drowned out by people sending loud, undeniably hateful speech in an Internet echo chamber that rewards sensationalism." It's a perfect summation of Gamergate's positions in a well-respected reliable source, and it draws comparisons to other recent social movements. Certainly the idea that "it's complicated" is reason enough to 86 a vague, poorly-worded sentence that is 50% Wikilink to the Sexism in video gaming article. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's the point where I'd ordinarily quit appealing to your common sense and go to the trouble of finding a few of the many, many sources which correctly describe Gamergate as nothing more than a bunch of women-hating nerds angry, desperate howl to a culture which is changing and leaving them behind, but Strongjam's kindly found a few examples for me. Cheers, Strongjam. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

No need. There's another discussion in this thread where I posted 15 reliable sources that describe the movement as far more than a bunch of women-hating angry nerds. I would love to have a discussion about the proper use of reliable sources rather than having anyone appeal to my common sense, which is not nearly as reliable. It's up there in an exchange with the wonderful editor named Aquillion. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

(e/c)There are many sources that have discredited the idea that there is "consumer" anything - and the only sources that ever did use that terminology placed the attribution firmly as some people using GG hashtag were attempting to position itself as. There are no sources that discredit the idea that what has been relevant is the sustained harassment - that is what virtually all of the coverage has focused intensely on. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well naturally. I don't think you're asking the correct question, though. Nearly every source does indeed discredit the Gamergate ethics narrative, but that's not the issue. The sources state that Gamergate considers themselves to be concerned about ethics (hence, consumer movement). Whether or not they actually are a consumer movement is irrelevant. I used the words "self-described consumer movement" in my third lead choice, which I think would be reflected by the sources. See the above quote from the Washington Post that defends the self-described consumer movement definition. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

per WP:UNDUE that lone out in left field view of themselves is not what is presented as fact in the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting notion, that we should not report on how a group identifies itself in spite of the fact that nearly every reliable source reports on how the group identifies itself. How do you propose we identify the parties in the controversy? Seems every other controversy article in Wikipedia immediately identifies the subjects of the controversy in the opening sentence, why not this one too? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

other groups are actual groups with leaders and spokespeople and official manifestos and websites where they post their mission etc etc. gamergate has none of these. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

They do have an inofficial one, however it's not a reliable source but more of their gathered information like Wikipedia. It's connected to their Reddit forum KotakuInAction. It does show their current ongoing goals.TheRealVordox (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

that site to which you refer only represents those that made it, it is about as inofficial as you could get. you can see how much credence "groups" with only inofficial everything are treated by reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, highly unreliable source, nature of the movement and how it works. TheRealVordox (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there are very many sources defining it as a consumer movement; that has a number of implications that aren't present in the coverage. (eg. some sources describe it as a movement fundamentally centered around culture warfare against what they see as ideological opponents, or opposing the diversification of gaming, or fighting the progressive slant of the media, or opposing feminism, or countless other things.) And this cuts to the core of the problem with your suggestion; you feel that you have definitely, clearly identified what Gamergate is, and have done a lot of original research in collecting articles where they use this or that word to prove it, but most of the in-depth coverage -- sources that have gone into detail on what it is and tried to analyze it at length -- do not agree. I particularly disagree with your assertion that this is definitely, clearly "how the group identifies itself"; that is not clear at all (eg. Nathaniel Givens and Adam Baldwin -- who seem to consider themselves part of it -- are outspoken about the fact that Gamergate is a cultural movement focused on opposing leftism and progressivism.) This confusion over what it is and what it wants is present in almost all reliable sources; for that reason, it is better for us to avoid sweeping declarations in the lead unless they are clearly supported throughout the article text. I feel that the current lead does a good job of confining itself to statements that are heavily-supported in reliable sources and throughout the article; I don't think that your proposed changes would improve it. --Aquillion (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I actually prefer the term "culture war" to "controversy regarding sexism." I think I used that language in my first option of the alternative leads I proposed, but it was clouded up by people protesting the idea that Gamergate is considered a movement. Culture war is far more descriptive than "regarding sexism in video game culture." And I think the current opening sentence places too much weight on sexism (which is a pretty vague and open-ended word) and not enough on the harassment and threats, which is the real meat of the controversy. This is all quite helpful, and I think a more descriptive leading sentence is somewhere in the middle. I just need to take a step back from responding to all of these Talk Page comments to try to find it. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. The current lede should be modified. I like your second suggestion. Pollinosisss (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in everyone. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we rename this article "Gamergate movement." That was the recently closed RFC, and while I didn't comment there, I understand that there is consensus against renaming the article. What I am calling for is a rewrite of the lead, which is objectively terrible (as evidenced by the influx of new editors coming to the page complaining about the lead). So with all due respect, no, you did not just have this discussion. And that doesn't matter anyway. Further, saying things such as "we've been over this a billion times" is not terribly helpful. Focusing on the fact that I wanted to define Gamergate as a "movement" in the article space is one small aspect of the comment I left. I wanted to define it as a movement, because every reliable source defines it as a movement. I do not want to change the article name, because while Gamergate is a movement, the movement is only notable because of the controversy. Hence, the article name. Now I'm going to try to respond to the points raised, but I'm going to cut this one off because I'm anticipating an edit conflict, and I write horribly slowly. Again, I thank you all for your helpful feedback. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not terribly helpful to restart conversations that have been held a billion times with no new slew of sources to support a policy and source based change of coverage. WP:V / WP;UNDUE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"no new slew of sources". SPIT TAKE! Sorry. Let me just point you to this comment I left.[22] Nearly every comment I have made today has been backed by reliable sources. What I think is truly not helpful is the dismissive hand-waving that does nothing to address the issues I have brought forth. If you have a problem with the reliability of the sources that I have listed, then by all means let me have it. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually there are numerous,reliable, current sources describing Gamergate as a "movement". Please see above for a detailed list (Time Magazine, WSJ, Washington Post to name a few) Marcos12 (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of those sources don't discuss what it is in any depth. The ones that do (as I pointed out above) almost universally come to the conclusion that it is large, complicated, controversial, and that the one thing everyone agrees on is that it is a loud angry shouting argument. This uncertainty about what it is and what the people behind it want is covered, in depth, in the article itself, which the lead must reflect; building a list of every time a source has used the term 'movement' in passing is not a substitute for that kind of in-depth coverage (and, indeed, using that alone to say "it is definitely a movement!" would be WP:OR, especially given that most of the sources that go into depth on it make note of its hard-to-define character.) Of course I'm not suggesting that we banish the term from the article; but I don't feel that collecting a bunch of offhand uses of the word is sufficient to justify defining it as such in the lead when so many sources that go into detail on the topic agree that it lacks clear definition. In fact, the current lead does mention that the initial attacks on Quinn eventually formed into '... anonymous and amorphous movement', which I feel adequately represents the sources you're discussing. What else would you want to add beyond that? --Aquillion (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• I said this twice above, but I think it's core enough to the discussion to deserve its own section: The current lead does already say that "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." This, I think, answers all the sources you have above. If I understand your concerns correctly (there's been a lot of things said!), you don't feel that this description accurately represents either the 'movement', such as it is, or its origins, or its purpose; but we have to base our coverage on reliable sources, in proportion to the weight given by those sources, and most of them describe it in that manner. You claim that we're not presenting the crux of the controversy, but according to most reliable sources, that is the crux of the controversy. We do go on to discuss, elsewhere in the lead, the various other aspects that different sources have commented on, but at heart we cannot substitute an editor's personal opinions about what Gamergate is 'really' about for the coverage in reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, this is not my personal opinion. I'm working from a list of 20 articles that discuss the entirety of Gamergate, and I'll post how each article has defined the movement/campaign/controversy/hashtag. You'll notice that I'm posting some definitions that agree with you, and some that agree with me. I'm doing this to show that I'm not trying to push a POV, but merely trying to represent how this controversy has been covered:

Damn, actually now that I look at it, "man-baby jamboree" is by far the best definition I've seen. Is there any way we can slip that into the lead? "Gamergate is a man-baby jamboree that is responsible for all sexism in video game culture." Something like that. Anyway, what I'm trying to point out by posting these is that the journalists seems to agree that Gamergate is about one thing: harassment dressed up as concerns about ethics. This is the two aspect of the story. I use Westboro Baptist Church as an example of a group who thinks they are doing one thing, but they're actually doing another. Most commentators don't consider WBC to be a church at all, but rather a family, or a hate group. But the fact that WBC calls themselves a church is a given, and it's stated (appropriately) in the leading sentence of the Westboro Baptist Church Wikipedia article. The same can be said for this Gamergate article. They call themselves a consumer movement in the same way that the WBC calls themselves a church. But once we, in Wikipedia's voice, say that the WBC is not a church, we are engaging in the controversy, which is generally discouraged. I'm going to go offline for a bit, and by all means talk amongst yourselves, but I'll try to gather all of the feedback and compose an opening sentence that I feel is more informative than the current version and post it when I get the chance. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the comparison to WBC is that WBC has an organization to speak for them. "GamerGate" is anyone who wants to tweet a hashtag. — Strongjam (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, I don't see any sources in the WBC article denying that it is a church; in fact, our article on the WBC, when it discusses what it is and what it believes, primarily cites reputable scholars and journalists who have analyzed and discussed the topic, just like our Gamergate article does -- we describe it as a church because they agree that it is a church. When it is cited for anything of importance in the article, that cite is always coupled with a reputable second-party source backing up the relevance of the quote or viewpoint expressed; we never just take the WBC at face-value. Likewise, our current article quotes people involved in the controversy (like Baldwin), but never just uses them to describe the topic, since that wouldn't be an encyclopedic way to cover it. I've seen several people make the comparison between our WBC and Gamergate articles, but I think it's clear that first, the two handle their topics in essentially identical ways; and second, the Gamergate article (due to the attention it has received) has overall higher quality sourcing. I don't see any particular argument in that comparison that would support changing this article's lead in the way you are suggesting, nor do I see anything in the sources you cited that isn't adequately covered in the current article or the current lead. --Aquillion (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The list of sources above doesn't seem to back what the change you're trying to make (that is, they primarily match the "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" description in the current lead, especially when they trace Gamergate's history.) I will reiterate that even in describing Gamergate as "an organization that thinks it is doing one thing...", you are expressing your own personal point of view and not one (as far as I can tell) that you have cited to any reputable sources -- that isn't what the majority of the sources you're citing say, in other words. In fact, many of the sources in the article (and even the ones you posted above) are clear in saying that there are people involved in Gamergate who know exactly what it is doing. (Again, this is complicated by the difficulty in defining who it is, but there are absolutely sources in the article who say that Gamergate exists as a culturejamming operation intended to fight a culture war against ideological enemies; ones that say that it exists to oppose progressivism or feminism or other -isms, and so on. Saying "well, those sources are wrong, we need to say what Gamergate really says it is about" is substituting your own original research for the research of sources in the article. If you have particular sources that you feel the lead doesn't reflect, of course, go ahead and highlight them; but just looking over them myself, I'm not seeing it. --Aquillion (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Since it seems to have gotten lost in the mass of text above, I'll highlight it again: The article's lead currently says "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." This seems to describe Gamergate using the term 'movement' that ColorOfSuffering wants, while matching how it is discussed in the sources above; much of the rest (the various arguments about what's driving this) are covered in the "Many users..." sentence a bit further down. Therefore, can we call this discussion closed? I'm not seeing any concrete reasons why that sentence is not sufficient to answer all the valid complaints raised above -- as far as I can tell, we've come to the conclusion that the lead needs to use the term 'movement' somewhere, and mention its history, but should avoid characterizing that movement beyond that. The current lead seems to satisfy all these requirements admirably. --Aquillion (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this discussion has gone on for a good amount of time, and personally I have the information I think I need to move forward with a more solid lead restructuring. The original comment was about the poor quality of the first sentence of the lead, which I feel is vague and insufficient compared to other better-written opening sentences in similar articles. The rest of the lead needs work, but it's not in as bad of a state as the first sentence. Unfortunately the discussion got completely submarined by multiple editors focusing solely on the word "movement" rather than the bulk of my original comment. It's probably my own fault; I only wanted to use the word movement to more clearly define Gamergate in the opening sentence ("movement" is used in many sources as a neutral descriptor for Gamergate without qualification, as pointed out above), not to push some kind of POV or attempt to legitimize the existence of Gamergate or their views. I mean, for the love of God, as you pointed out, we already describe Gamergate as a movement in the lead. It's the third sentence: 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. How on earth are people contesting the proposal of simply moving that definition up to the opening sentence? But also lost among that wall of text is some very productive feedback from yourself, Liz, EncyclopediaBob, Kaciemonster, Woodroar, and Pollinosisss, which I will use to craft what I feel is a more informative lead sentence and I thank you for what you've contributed to the discussion. Now, regarding the WBC and any other examples I use, I am not saying that they are exactly identical. That's a straw man. My point was that the WBC is only notable for their protest activities, in the same way that Gamergate is only notable for its harassment. The WBC is identified as a church in the opening sentence rather than as a hate group, which is how it is "widely described" (see the second sentence of the Wikipedia article). Gamergate is not identified at all in the opening sentence, which is a problem -- putting the cart before the horse (or the controversy before the subjects). In addition, I know that the WBC has official leaders and a website. That's irrelevant. WBC thinks it is one thing, but it's widely described as another thing. Gamergate thinks it is one thing, but it is widely described as another thing. Potato, potato (that doesn't quite work when it's typed out, does it?). And I am doing no original research with regards to "Gamergate thinks it is X." In fact, I'm fairly baffled as to why you have repeatedly asserted that this is not reflected in any reliable sources, and have now asserted that I'm conducting original research. Is it a problem with how I'm formatting the citations I'm posting? Are you just not seeing them? You'd previously said that I "should read some of the links you posted in more detail." I would offer you that same advice, and suggest that you read some of the sources I post here in any kind of detail before suggesting that I've conducted original research again. I'll try it one last time before we move to a new section, highlighting the relevant parts for you:

• "Supporters see it as a consumer movement that's also, essentially, leaderless. That means, they said, that more rational voices who want to talk about ethics in journalism have been drowned out by people sending loud, undeniably hateful speech in an Internet echo chamber that rewards sensationalism." -- Washington Post
• "The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage." -- The New York Times
• "They also say the media focus on the harassment of women obscures another important GamerGate message: to reform a powerful video game reviewing press they feel has an oversized influence in what gamers purchase." -- Al Jazeera
• "Many of her critics took his claims as evidence of corruption in gaming journalism. So they coalesced around the #gamergate hashtag on social media, claiming they were out to expose a gaming conspiracy. But the collective actions of the whipped-up online horde suggests otherwise." -- Christian Science Monitor
• "When reporters characterize Gamergate as misogynistic, proponents say those views don’t represent the movement. Instead, many claim to be advocating greater ethics among the video game press." -- Columbia Journalism Review
• "In fact, that reinforces the "us vs. them" rhetoric that GamerGaters prefer. They’re playing a game with an unattainable win state, steeped in a deep misunderstanding of the games journalism they claim to want to reform. " -- Entertainment Weekly
• "Regardless of the aims and beliefs of any one individual using the tag, Gamergate is an expression of a narrative that certain video-game fans have chosen to believe: that the types of games they enjoy may change or disappear in the face of progressive criticism and commentary, and that the writers and journalists who cover the industry coördinate their message and skew it to push an agenda." -- The New Yorker
• "But the people attacking Sarkeesian have been emboldened lately by #GamerGate, an online movement whose participants say they are targeting corruption in gaming journalism. The campaign has roots in hate speech towards women who make and talk about video games." -- Time

Do you see those quotes? The ones I just posted that state plainly what Gamergate proponents claim their movement is about? Do you see the quality of those sources? These are just a few examples that I could find easily; other articles actually quote Gamergate supporters but I left those out because they're not written using the author's voice. Many sources cite the stated aims of Gamergate, which is typically followed by a lengthy discussion of how the movement has behaved in contrast to these aims, how their aims are ill-conceived, or how the movement has been portrayed in media. What I'm doing when I post these long lists is how you are supposed to conduct research for contentious points. I'll quote WP:OR: "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly." I have done this. Repeatedly. For example, the Washington Post article uses "Consumer Movement" explicitly, as you can see above. That is what you're supposed to do, and it's what's been seriously lacking in the discussion of this article for a long time. But I we may be talking past each other, so when I have more time I'll start a new section that's perhaps a little more focused, if that's even possible on this page. I can already sense the itchy "let's close down this section" trigger finger of our silent Gamergate talk page admin sentries. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I see what some in gamergate say they are. i can say i am the grand high poobah of the united council of everything. doesnt make it so, nor would NYT reporting that i call myself that make it any more true. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. So you advise that we ignore what the reliable sources say? Well, I'll take that into consideration. Thanks for your feedback! ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. For your convenience, ColourOfSuffering, a paraphrasing: "I can say I am the grand high poobah... but NYT reporting that I call myself that doesn't make it true." PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking over those sources, it's clear that they don't agree on their characterization of Gamergate (some of them say that it is about a general concern for ethics; some of them say that it is about opposing progressivism; some of them say that it is about exposing a specific conspiracy, and so on). That discussion is, as I said, adequately covered under the section of the lead that currently reads "Many users of the hashtag have said that their goal..." Given that, I'd like to ask you to, please, to not attempt to restructure the lead; it is clear that you have failed to provide sources justifying it, and it is clear, likewise, (given the length of this discussion!) that there is no consensus for your changes nor any likelihood that that consensus will emerge. --Aquillion (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

non-arbitrary break about Gamergate self-reporting (with outdenting edits)

But it is a self-stated claim about themselves, made in a highly reliable source, and as such we can include it as a claim (or the fact this is what this person claims) alongside counterclaims that it is not true. That's the nature of a controversy in that there are two (or more) sides so we should be trying to objectively define the claims both sides are making and not prejudging either; keeping in mind specifically here that one side has a significant amount of coverage, and the other side, while nowhere close to that level and thus we're not going to have equal coverage per UNDUE, still has enough to provide objective statements about the self-stated claims from their side that we can stay objective and impartial in the coverage. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

And to stress - this only applies to claims they are making directly about themselves and their motives. Claims they have made about others with no backing/support would fail BLP even if the RS published it (And in fact, I have seen other BLP claims stated by GG mentioned in mainstream RS sources, and which we have not repeated at all in the article, which is a good thing). --MASEM (t) 02:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

However, one person claiming to speak for Gamergate or as a Gamergater is very problematic, because for most claims about GG there are opposite claims from people claiming to speak for Gamergate or as a Gamergater. The unorganized, decentralized, somewhat coordinated in some area, mostly anonymous claims make a single voice claiming to speak for Gamergate, as Gamergate or as a Gamergate difficult to remove from UNDUE territorty. Because just how authoritative is any given voice in that regard. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Except, that the sources that are reporting on self-stated claims from GGers are not contradictory in reporting those claims - they are saying GGs are looking at ethics, etc. However, it is a fair point that a single voice with no identity is hard to say is representative, however, I'm not seeing many sources base the whole of GG's self-stated motives on one voice. Take the Singal piece which is one of the better articles in an RS that hits on the claims made by many GGers (as he posed his questions to KIA directly). That's a lot better representation of the sample, even considering that Singal walks away from his article noting GG is not helping their cause any by their attitudes and lack of disorganization. --MASEM (t) 03:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Still having problems with anonymous representatives that may or may not be representative of Gamergate self-reporting about Gamergate - especially 1) when they contradict RS observations, and 2) anonymity means that anyone could claim anything. We already talk about what some Gamergate voices say Gamergate is about. What more in particular do you think needs to be included? Separately, I have a problem with the two-side framing. The article doesn't have two-sides it has at least three or four: Gamergate harassment, ethics claims, overreaction, reaction to social justice, gamer identity, Gamergate activities, etc. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't see a problem with noting that Gamergate claims to be a "consumer movement fighting for ethics in game journalism". The reliable sources definitely support that they claim that, and let's be honest here, pointing out how incredibly dubious that claim is is a large part of the back-and-forth between gamergate and everyone else, and understanding what gamergate thinks its doing (or at least, what the rank and file thinks its doing) brings a lot more clarity to the actions described in the article. As long as we are careful to say what the sources say, that it's a claim and nothing more, I don't see any problem with mentioning it, and I don't think doing so legitimizes the harassment in any way, if that's what people are worried about.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly how we should present it under an objective stance. Stating "GG claims they are X. Critics claim they are not X because of Y." is a completely neutral stance, and respects all sources without judgement. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, not quite. The RS aren't quoting the opinions of the critics, they're making the criticisms themselves. If wikipedia's voice is supposed to mimic the RS, then we would have to state something like "GG claims they are X, but they are not because of Y."Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, it's important to point out that the reliable sources do not agree on what Gamergate says it is. This is something the article covers in depth; many sources are uncertain about what the people supporting it say. The lead touches on the broad outlines of what many users of the hashtag have been reported as saying they want, but it is clear that there is not enough agreement among sources to state it more definitively than that. --Aquillion (talk) 08:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The main problem I'm having with this is when we try to say "claim about themselves" can we specify who "they" are adequately and correctly? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that, while this discussion is clearly going in circles at this point, one thing we have established is that there is no agreement among sources about what Gamergate claims to be, what it claims its goals are, and so on. Given this, I think that the concerns people are citing above are already covered, to the extent that they can be, by the section of the current lead that reads "Many users of the hashtag have said that their goal..." It's clear that one or two people above think that they have a clear understanding of what this nebulously-defined Gamergate thing says is all about, but I don't think TheColourOfSuffering has provided sources that back up the changes he seems to want to make; while he keeps listing articles, on closer inspection it's clear that none of them agree on what Gamergate as a whole claims to be about, nor do they, collectively, give us enough support to make any particularly decisive statements to that effect in the lead beyond the bit that reads "Many users of the hashtag have said..." That sentence, I feel, is perfect, since it avoids making the claim a sweeping or universal statement of what Gamergate claims to be or what it is about (which is, as TheColourOfSuffering's list of sources indicates, not something there is any agreement on). --Aquillion (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think the Gamergate Hashtag section covers the claims also. Did that section miss any? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

How about calling this article "GamerGate"

GamerGate already redirects to this article.... we could rename it such. Gamergate the ant, and GamerGate the mess. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Meh. I wouldn't be opposed. Still think (hashtag) is ok too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue with the "GamerGate" casing is that WP in general does not use that -Gate capitalization for any "gate" articles regardless of sourcing. Arguably, "Gamergate (controversy)" de-emphaizes any officially-sounding name (since that might be a majority, but not a strong one) while still describing the article properly. --MASEM (t) 04:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I know that "Watergate" was always rendered that way and am unsure that the capitalization in any other "gate" scandal article should be determinative here. I think "GamerGate" is probably the predominent way that real world people refer to the topic. Endless battling over "controversy" or "movement" in the title is a waste of editor keystrokes and brain power. Far better to spend time discussing how to improve the actual article content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Serious question: might this be a proper time to invoke WP:IAR? Naming conventions be damned if it (1) better reflects common name and (2) ends the endless "discussion" of the title. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, consensus will always trump IAR and nearly everyone prefers controversy. That can change, obviously, but even just over a week ago the move request was SNOW closed. Woodroar (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

They certainly prefer it to "movement", yes. Not sure they prefer it to (hashtag) or GamerGate. See what discussion this generates in the next 24 hours. You may be right, but at least this is mildly fresher than the "movement" suggestion(s). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That's fair. I still think that sources overwhelmingly discuss the events and people, both online and offline, which necessitates some kind of qualifier like "controversy". Even Watergate, The Original -Gate™, redirects to Watergate scandal. Woodroar (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Especially in light of this comment, I'm opposed to just moving it to Gamergate. Perhaps Gamergate (hashtag)? I'd prefer controversy to this though. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I can support Gamergate (controversy), but I oppose unqualified GamerGate or Gamergate. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• This subject is clearly primary over the ant. A title that doesn't classify the subject is obviously better when we have one source after another explaining how difficult the subject is to classify. The eigenvector (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate really is a flash in the pan compared to something of actual interest to real people. If we moved the ant article off primary, we'd just end up moving it back to primary when the harassers from Gamergate finally get tired of yelling at everyone and people forget this whole conspiracy theory existed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, when our ant overlords finally arrive, Wikipedia needs to be ready. Gamegate got 147 views back in July compared to 26,000 now. By my calculations, that suggests that 99.4 percent of current readers are being misled by the title. The eigenvector (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I personally think it's best to keep it named "GamerGate Controversy". It is a controversy, there are opposing views (none of which are fairly represented here I might add), and a bit of a mess. I think the title is fine, the article in its current state needs a lot of work --Davblayn (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly best that it is not titled "GamerGate Controversy" and I definitely hope never to see CamelCase used, or for controversy to be incorporated as a proper noun. Nor should the article be titled GamerGait; in my opinion.--John Cline (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's better than controversy and more NPOV, so I'm in support. This article title continues to violate our basic policies. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Such as...? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think we're going round in circles. Could somebody create sub-headers for each of the proposed titles so that folks can discuss the pros and cons of each in terms of usage, sources, policy, and technical issues? Maybe that way we can get to the bottom of this once and for all. Most people seem to think the current title is imperfect, but other possibilities (aside from "movement" and usurping ants) haven't been properly thrashed out. It might be that this is the least worst title, or it might be that another one gains traction, but I'd like to see it settled with a degree of finality and then have a moratorium on title discussions for a few months. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this is more exploratory than a !vote yet. It's probably better to have a likely name change target that a straw poll would agree and then put up a !vote for it.
  • As a couple other ideas, "Gamergate (controversy)" or "Gamergate (video gaming)" would be neutral terms that provide the needed disamb, but without implicating anything more pro or negative about it. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• I'd definitely oppose camelcase (too confusing to link to externally, and we don't use GamerGate in the article.) I don't like the parenthesized versions, either -- they strike me as a bit more clunky -- but I'm not as strenuously opposed. I don't honestly see the problem with the current title, nor do I particularly see how Gamergate (controversy) would improve things. Gamergate (hashtag) -- and most other, similar suggestions -- seem right out because they would narrow the scope of the article below what it currently covers; a controversy can encompass a large amount of coverage, but a hashtag is something very specific, and I'm not sure our current article would work under that sort of title. --Aquillion (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am definitely opposing to this article being changed to "Gamergate", which I must share my input on. As said, this title has been the primary topic for female worker ants that can reproduce with mature males. To be exact, it has been the primary topic for over 30 years. No further questions should be asked whether or not it should be moved. This is a controversy, it will settle down and be a thing of the past; meanwhile this term will still be in use for the ant. I don't really see why you should move it anyway since its current title actually refers to the controversy itself. I would prefer keeping its name the way it is. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• the current title, Gamergate controversy, accurately represents what the vast majority of the reliable sources have focused on - the notoriety regarding the actions associated with the hashtag. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• As I've noted before, sources disagree. There are some that call GamerGate a controversy (NPR, Boston Globe, LA Times, Washington Post) but there are others that call it a culture war (The Guardian, Al-Jazeera, Columbia Journalism Review, Time) or a campaign (The Guardian, The New York Times, The Independent, Washington Post) or scandal (The New Yorker). GamerGate is typically identified as a "movement" only in the article spaces rather than in a headline, so I'd dismiss that definition for the Wikipedia article title due to the prevalence of the naming convention (per WP:UCRN. As with everything in the article, sources disagree, but I'm inclined to agree with HJ Mitchell in that for the time being, controversy is the "least worst" and we should really quit wasting time discussing a move and focus on improving the article instead. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • A thing to keep in mind: most newspaper headlines are not written by the person that wrote the article. It is generally considered at WP:RS that headlines should not be considered part of the reliable content of an article (only necessary to include to verify). Hence what's happening in the body is more important. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Similar to Wu?

At this writing, the article reads

After his identity was revealed, he said he received threats similar to what Wu and others had, with at least one saying he "shouldn't have fucked with 8chan"

Is the claim that he said he received threats similar to what Wu and others had actually correct? This is, in my opinion, implied by the writer of the referenced article, but is not actually stated there. In particular, he claims to have received threats similar in content, but there is no claim to receiving a similar volume of threats. Also, I'm having a hard time understanding why we say "with at least one saying he "shouldn't have fucked with 8chan". What does this tell us about Gamergate? It's not clear to me that Connors actually did "fuck with 8chan". I'm not averse to the vulgarity where it serves some purpose, but this seems pointless and confusing. I propose

After his identity was revealed, he said that he himself received threats.

I have no idea whether this edit would be a revert or not, so I'm proposing it here. I don’t foresee that this should be contentious. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. Reading through the source I don't see anything that says the harassment is similar to what Wu and others have received, so I think what we currently have is WP:OR. — Strongjam (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

When this was brought up originally I suggested using the Buzzfeed article (which is from their news side) because it's more complete. Anyhow that article has the 8chan quote. Most of the other articles are written from the Buzzfeed one. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: I think the edit was intending to include who Connors thought the harassment was from. I'm not sure the inclusions this story works here - because the shortest version is 1) spoof, 2) Wu feeling unsafe, 3) gamergate supported spoof believe it was real, 4) spoof revealed, 5) spoofer getting harassed by Gamergate. I don't think there's a short way to do that (grammatically) without bloating the entry. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: (again because I can't use this tp) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

On review I think the "received threats similar to what Wu and others had" bit comes from the Buzzfeed article where he says "but I see what it means now to be in the other person’s shoes". Which isn't quite the same thing. I think we should just change it to "After his identity was revealed, he said that he himself received threats and harassment.", the quote about fucking with 8chan is probably just there to draw a connection to 8chan, which I don't think we need. — Strongjam (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that including the part where he thinks it's GG is important, but we don't have to include 8chan+profanity quote. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Strongjam's proposed wording. It's less jumbled than anything else. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Updated with some tweaks. I think ForbiddenRocky is right we should try and attribute where he thinks the harassment is coming from, but I couldn't figure out the best way to do that with the sources we have at the moment. — Strongjam (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The Gamergate Conspiracy

We have discussed at some length above whether Gamergate should be described as a "controversy," as we do now, or as a "movement”, as Gamergate supporters apparently prefer. The sources clearly have a hard time finding the precise language to use here. So do we. Let’s look at all the options.

A movement is “a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas.” The members, or the leaders, of a movement are identifiable people, and the shared ideas are typically put forth in a manifesto or platform. Examples include the labor movement, the temperance movement, the Impressionist movement, and the Chautauqua movement. Even the resistance movements of the Second World War were characterized by organization; indeed, organization is what distinguishes an “organized resistance,” and a resistance necessarily adheres to stated principles. Gamergate lacks leadership, organization, or a statement of principles. Gamergate is not a movement; nomovement come to mind that lacks both leadership and manifesto.

A controversy is “a dispute, a prolonged public disagreement.” Controversy surrounds Gamergate; indeed, that controversy has made Gamergate notable. Some have argued here at some length that, while controversy surrounds Gamergate, Gamergate is not a controversy. They do have a point: our sources do write of “Gamergate supporters,” but no one writes about “Watergate supporters” or “Tea Pot Dome supporters.” Our current lede uses “controversy” as a generous fiction: it's not perfect, but it’s been satisfactory for some time and I have no strong objection to maintaining it.

We do have a word that does apply rigorously to Gamergate as it is described by the sources: that word is conspiracy A conspiracy is “a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful,” and this is precisely what our sources describe. Gamergate’s absence of visible leadership and the lack of expressed principles aren’t compatible with the behaviors of movements but are, of course, quite common in conspiracies from Alcibiades to Cataline and onward.

“Plot” might be an alternative to “conspiracy,” though it is probably even more pejorative. “Scheme” would also work in its American usage, but its use in British English to describe a governmental or institutional programme would cause confusion. “Crusade” captures the fervor of Gamergate’s supporters and the violence of their sentiments, but crusades have a stated goal. Likewise, Gamergate cannot be a “campaign” or a “drive” as it lacks an objective toward which to it steer. “Cabal” is possible, I suppose.

But “conspiracy” is precise. “Conspiracy” also lets us finesse the problem of Gamergate being said to “claim” to be a movement. Who can credibly assert that claim? Someone might claim that Gamergate is a clam, or a festival, or a joke: how should we judge? If someone claims it’s one thing, and someone else claims it’s not, how do we distinguish? In two ways: WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. Following the latter, it’s hard to see that Gamergate can be made to fit the definition of “movement,” but it clearly fits the definition of “conspiracy” perfectly. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As the lack of sources that call it out as "Gamergate conspiracy", compared to either "Gamergate controversy" or "Gamergate movement", this should not be done. (There are conspiracy-like elements within the Gamergate claims such as about collusion between devs and journalists, but that's not the full extent of their arguments) Further, calling it a conspiracy or a plot is pushing a judgemental point of view that WP cannot do; we must stay objective in covering this and not attempt to cast any condemnation on them at all. "Movement" is the most neutral/objective, but "controversy" is also as frequent in terms of source use and is at least a reasonable description of this. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

We do actually have a peer-reviewed source that calls it a conspiracy. "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. — Strongjam (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that the sources calling it a conspiracy didn't exist, just that they are nowhere near numbers to move off "controversy" (or to "movement") - a google check shows 30-40k for conspiracy/movement and only about 1k for conspiracy. One thing to keep in mind, and this is a point in RSes about the group: what its intents were at the onset changed as it grew, and continue to chase as it gets out of control. Did it likely start with a conspiracy? Sure. But at the "height" of this (say, the Oct-Dec timeframe), there were a number of people involved that were in it not because they were in a conspiracy but because they were honestly believing there were trying to talk about ethics. There certainly remained conspiratorial elements as there likely are still today, but at that point, there were probably numerous small factions with GG that whatever the goal was was unclear. The anonymous and uncoordinated nature of GG means it was also amorphous, and what its nature has changed since August. Hence why "controversy" is probably the best term if there's a strong discomfort with using "movement"; it doesn't attempt to describe a nature (positively or negatively) to the GG groups. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

But at the "height" of this (say, the Oct-Dec timeframe), there were a number of people involved that were in it not because they were in a conspiracy but because they were honestly believing there were trying to talk about ethics well, they SAID "but ethics" but what they actually groused about was "those feminists are taking our games away!!!!! " which is - well, a giant conspiracy theory. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Mark's proposal is that GG itself is a giant conspiracy (eg secretive actions to promote harassment using ethics as a front), not that the GG have several conspiracy theories about the media. There are elements of both to be discussed in this article , but neither point is sufficiently called out enough in the press to name the article that way. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I gotta agree with Masem here. We're not really supposed to be handing out diagnoses from our own judgment, as it were, and so while we may be able to demonstrate how GG checks the checklist, if the preponderance of RS don't say it, we really shouldn't either.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we call it an "incident" or "incidents"? --George Ho (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That's even less a chance by google hit names. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

An "incident" is "an event or occurrence;" Gamergate clearly involves numerous incidents. But affair might possibly apply, though my dictionary says that an affair refers a series of events which have previously been described, and so would be unsuited to the lede. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As accurate as 'conspiracy' is, we probably can't use it predominantly for the same reasons we can't use 'movement'- it's simply not what the reliable sources refer to it as. I wouldn't at all be opposed to inclusion into the article clarification on how some of our reliable sources identify the Gamergate tantrum as conspiratorial at its core, however. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Amusingly, the original term used for Gamergate was the Quinnspiracy; while I don't think we could use that as the page title, perhaps that should be a redirect to here and mentioned in the lead as an alternate title? While we can't use it as a source (and I don't think it matters particularly), Quinnspiracy seems to be a term used even by people who self-identify as part of Gamergate; eg. their wiki is the Gamergate / Quinnspiracy wiki. --Aquillion (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Quinnspiracy since it is sourced in the article should definitely redirect to here. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Quinnspiracy is also the name of Zoe Quinn's twitter account, so couldnt it just as easily redirect there?Bosstopher (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • That's true. It could be a disambiguation page for both meanings, but I feel we only need the redirect and then hat for the other version. --MASEM (t) 22:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

If this analysis is correct, wave have some editing to do: we have Neoclassicism, Rococo, Realism, Avant-garde, Arts and crafts movement, Charismatic movement, Free love, Hippie movement, Nudism, Squatting and, well, the list goes on. All of these are described as movements and none had an identified leadership of proclaimed manifesto. Of course, looking back, we can say who the principal movers were and what they were on about. GoldenRing (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If you think Arts and Crafts had no leadership, William Morris would like a word with you, as would the Rosetti clan, And if it had no manifesto, John Ruskin will be surprised. Palladio will serve for Neoclassicism, arguably Courbet for Realism, perhaps alongside the pertinent critics. The avant-garde of the moment has often had an abundance of manifestos and leaders: Wilde in the 1890s, Gertrude Stein and her circle in the 1920s, Andy Warhol in the 60s. If you were a reporter and you wanted to seek out a representative Hippie in the summer of 1968, I expect Abbie Hoffman or Tom Hayden or -- why not? -- John Lennon would serve adequately. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. Looking back, you can say who the principals in those movements were; at the time, any claim that one or the other was a leader would be met with vociferous argument from the others. The avant-garde prove my point exactly; an abundance of manifestos is no manifesto at all, because no-one can agree on what should go in it. However, this entire section is a bit FORUMy, and I suspect this discussion is reaching the outer limit. GoldenRing (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Potential source material for inclusion

I don't want to extensively edit this article only for it to be reverted. And out of some caution, I'm going to mention the below link: (Redacted)

It extensively talks about the affidavit by Zoe Quinn. I do not feel certain in my ability to include this in this wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foia req (talk • contribs) 00:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Medium is not a reliable source. Redacted link due to BLP concerns. Woodroar (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me, but this is a talk page. Furthermore, how are reliable sources being defined? I wish to contribute to this article, but I do not know how. Foia req (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

it is the talk page to discuss how to improve the article. Reliable sources are defined as sources with a reputation for fact checking, accuracy, and editorial oversight. And note that claims about living people require the highest level of reputation-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with an editor, on a talk page, offering a link they think might be helpful, even if the link contains BLP violations and/or the link may be not be a WP reliable source, per BLPTALK. Yes, the link offered likely can never be used, but offering a possible source is a suggestion for improving the article, even if the link is determined to be unusable after review. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually a blanket declaration of "There is absolutely nothing wrong with an editor, on a talk page, offering a link they think might be helpful, even if the link contains BLP violations and/or the link may be not be a WP reliable source, " is false as has been proven by editors being banned/blocked for placing inappropriate links in violation of BLP on this very page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

And this point has been brough up at WP:BLP/N [23] and at Arbcom [24] and both agree that BLPTALK does not prevent the good faith inclusion of external links with possible BLP violations on talk pages under BLPTALK. Doing in a non-good faith manner ("We must incriminate this person, here are several links that we must include") is actionable, but this is not the case here. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

We agree that the initial posting by Foia req is probably not actively disruptive in the manner that would result in even a discussion of blocking or banning. However, I will stand by my statement that your blanket assertion that it is always OK to put links on talk pages is 1) factually wrong AND also given the history of this topic 2) a VERY BAD impression to give to a new editor. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

We assume good faith, and per the links I give, we cannot start with the impression that it is wrong without assuming bad faith. Now, yes, we should be advising new editors via this talk page FAQ that the nature of this page requires higher-than-normal RSes, and that certain sites will never be considered RSes for this topic at the present time so there's no need to discuss links. But the attitude that you suggest, even on a page like this, is unhealthy to an open wiki that encourages discussion and good faith working. --MASEM (t) 22:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom is, I think, correct. Talk pages are not to be used to spread slander, gossip, and rumor that has little chance to impact article space. It’s one thing to link to an inadequate source for an uncontentious fact like a birthdate in order to seek help finding better sourcing, but quite another to link to other material offsite which is both contentious and unusable. Wikipedia talk pages are not an open-fire zone where anything goes, and attempts to use them to punish targets should be met with prompt sanctions. New (and “new”) editors should exercise caution when linking to material that might be contentious and/or defamatory if not clearly supported by policy. (I have no idea what the content of the redacted link in this case might have been.) MarkBernstein (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It is all about intent of the link addition by the editor adding it, not the content. If an editor who clearly had a chip on their shoulder and wants to make sure to spread claims about a living person posted a number of links that were all BLP violations left and right, that's actionable. Here, because we have a newer editor that we can't judge motivation (per AFG), who feels that the article linked (which wasn't one massive BLP but did include BLP-related claims that would need careful handling) should be included or discussed for inclusion to discuss the nature of one of the person's involved, that's one that we simply go "no, it's not an RS, it's got BLP issues, we aren't going to include it" , but we should not be questioning the motives of the editor based on that single post. I am totally in agreement that all editors should use caution, review past discussion, and our talk page FAQ, so that the number of these links are minimized, but that's the extent that the recently clarifications of BLPTALK go towards, without knowing more about the motiviations of the editor. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW I've appended a part on the FAQ about BLP and sourcing and reviewing the archives before suggesting a new source. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to confirm that we're both on the same page, I trust you agree that even a new user with the best of intentions would be wrong to link to defamatory material in an unreliable source, and that another editor should promptly redact the link. We might then discuss whether the source was in fact unreliable, or discuss some other link; if no reliable source can be found, though, there's not much to discuss unless the fact is uncontentious. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

If the link is either to an article that immediately drops a BLP bombshell and is awash in it, or to a site that we have "blacklisted" due to the number of BLP vios on the site irregardless, then redaction is fine, with a comment to indicate why. On the otherhand, lets say an editor links to an article at Breitbart that out of 100 sentences has one small remark that could be taken as BLP, but the editor's reason to include is other points that have zero BLP issues. That should not be redacted though discussed and explained why we'd probably not include it. The point on BLPTALK is that including links to material that contains BLP violations is not necessarily wrong or needs to be dealt with in the same manner BLP on mainspace must be dealt with, but there still can be levels of improper link inclusion if the links are grossly violating or the intent is not in line with BLP. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Forget it, I'm not contributing to this article, if I can't meet the standards for a talk page, there's no way I can meet the standards for main article. Foia req (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, I do not think the link I posted was defamatory, however I have not found a more well known source talking about the affidavit. Foia req (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Cinema Blend

Hey. To my knowledge, Cinema Blend was removed as a source a month(?) or so ago because they can't be used to reliably source statements about things other than itself- A specific quotation from the editor who removed it last time: "they describe themselves in their FAQ as "primarily an opinion site" and are therefore not usable as a citation for statements of fact". This still holds true, so I'm removing it again and cutting down on what it was used to insert into the article (per WP:UNDUE), and rewording some of it to better represent the articles cited (most relevantly, the Destructoid one, which is not about 'updating policies in light of gamergate' as much as it is condemning harassment and reminding readers of the already in place policies.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That looks good, except I think the last sentence was okay to keep, as it is in the Escapist source, unless you think it's too tangential? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I shortened it a bit by rephrasing an earlier sentence as "The Escapist and parent company Defy Media updated their ethics policies". Is this suitable, or should we have it in its own sentence? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That works for me. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I like your rephrasing but I think we lost something by shortening the Macris quote. His previous quote had two parts: (1) why disclosure is important (2) how we intend to pursue it. Shortening the quote removed the "why" which is relevant. I've restored it. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The entire paragraph is about avoiding "perceived conflicts of interest". Do we need an extra sentence about the rationale behind disclosure? And beyond that, the (now) first quoted sentence references "that obligation", which is inferred but not explained, and almost requires that we restore yet more of the quotation. I say cut it back. Woodroar (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly why it's relevant; the entire paragraph is about avoiding conflict of interest but we say nothing about why it's important to avoid. If anything the first sentence in his quote is more useful than the second, which could be summarized more succinctly. I agree that "that obligation" isn't ideal, maybe there's a good solution. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

In cases such as this, it might be wise to add context in square brackets i.e. "with that obligation [to be honest to our readers]." I'm not really in favour of the longer quote, however- not sure it adds that much information. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Bracketed text (or something similar) works. Good. Is your objection that you don't think the sentence in question adds the "why" or that you don't think adding the "why" is important? —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think the 'why' is that important- the section is about responses to Gamergate from the games industry (and, I suppose, attached media outlets.) The 'why' is understood to be a reaction to the actions from those who associate themselves with Gamergate. If the 'why' isn't Gamergate, it... doesn't pertain so much to the article? Not sure if I'm explaining well. It's not a strong objection in any case, I'm just against needless bloat (especially with all these quotes.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Tim Schaefer mocks #NotYourShield

Consensus (!) that this discussion should wait to see whether new developments arise in the coming days
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm sorry for this, but... Independant's news about the joke. I'm giving a warning here, this'll be attempted to be added for better or worse but both sides. I'm pro-GamerGate as such I'll not write anything in the article but I'll be still searching for any controversy related to GamerGate.TheRealVordox (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Umm.... I'm not sure what you're saying here. It sounds to me like a developer made a joke about #NotYourShield. I'm not convinced that #NotYourShield needs more coverage here; it was a failed PR initiative to demonstrate minority support for GamerGate, and its critics have described it as AstroTurf from the start. That’s what we say currently, that’s what the reliable sources say, and that’s what Tim Schafer said. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC) How GDC broadly reacts to Gamergate might be useful for Industry Response section, but Tim Schafer makes a joke about Gamergate isn't useful for the article. Maybe in a couple days there will be a source with a broader viewpoint about things. — Strongjam (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC) its interesting that the hordes can still be rallied to play white knight defending the reputation of their diverse #notyoursocks in such a manner as to impact the twitter trending; but without greater coverage and commentary, probably not something we need to include. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC) You're well aware Gamergate supporters contribute to this talk page. This is not your first uncivil comment here toward fellow editors. Tone it down. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC) I don't believe frank remarks on the abject stupidity of Gamergate and its supporters is at all a thing we need to be policing. Do note: TRPOD directed his comments to precisely zero fellow editors- remember to assume good faith. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Didn't feel like uncivil nor targeted, he had a point and made it clear and I can agree with it. However I'll see if more comes up about this. This did make the NYS rally up in anger, this'll be an intense weekend and I hope nothing really bad comes from it. As of now NYS exploded with new people from what I've seen on twitter and YT. Let's observe where it goes. If able could anyone put this thread into covered/hidden and make it not modifiable? TheRealVordox (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC) If this turns into harassment (what I'm seeing is more just the social namecalling) then we should include this the ongoing harassment. But if this is the only thing that happens, I'd say we should leave it out for now. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of Revert by Strongjam

Regarding this revert of DHeyward.

• "In contrast to the Washington Post, The Telegraph and Le Monde that argue the hashtag was intended to be critical of Sarkheesian and Quinn" This needs to be sourced, and it's dangerously close to WP:OR with "In contrast to".
• "game show contestant turned commentator" Seems like an attempt to discredit the writer before we quote them.
• "Chu goes on and says that it's "white male journalists ... who take the risk of speaking out....". I can't find this in the cited source. Is there another source you meant to cite?

— Strongjam (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Self-reply.. I hate the slate website. Turns out you have to scroll down before it loads the rest of the article. Found the risk quote, but the elided bits seem like important context to me "it’s white male journalists who — slowly, imperfectly, all too infrequently — often act as a sadly necessary shield for women and people of color who take the risk of speaking out and get blasted for it." By elliding the quote you change the meaning of it. He didn't say it is white male journalists who take the risk of speaking out. He's saying that women and people of color who, if they speak out, take the risk of being attacked. — Strongjam (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

He is absolutely saying that it's white male journalists that are taking the risk - and that the hashtag was to silence white men. The entire paragraph starts with "Far from women and people of color serving as a shield for white men, it’s white male journalists who...." --DHeyward (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

He's saying they slowly, imperfectly and infrequently act as a shield for women and minorities, "who take the risk of speaking out and get blasted for it." You change the meaning by cutting out significant parts of the sentence. — Strongjam (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Your first issue is the first sentence of that section that explicitly say it is Quinn and Sarkheesian that were targeted by NotYourShield. The source are Washington Post, The Telegraph and Le Monde . read the firs paragraph of that section.

• That's his own self-description of what he is. He is not an academic or expert. He's a blogger that gained fame through a game show. Those are his words.

−:* You found the quote, yet after reading the entire article about his theory that the NotYourShield hashtag was direceted at silencing white males, you have a problem attributing a pronoun? The active part of the sentence is it it's white male journalists doing the acting. Basic reading comprehension is that they are also the ones taking the risk by speaking out. The rest of the article is about how bad it is to silence "white males." What meaning did you think changed? --DHeyward (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Then cite them in-line and then find a source that says Chu is in contrast to them.
• Where is it his own self-description, and why is it important to describe him that way?
• I have a problem with the cutting the quote up so much to change the meaning. It's putting words in his mouth he did not say. Which we've already established in an earlier case is a BLP issue.

— Strongjam (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't see this edit by DHeyward (which was thankfully reverted) as anything but WP:POINT making behaviour. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's another quote from the same article So what’s a really, really effective way to strangle any movement for change in the crib? The two-pronged approach of mocking privileged people for their pious hypocrisy in joining it and then letting marginalized people, once they have to stand alone, sink under the weight of being marginalized. This is the setting he is using for "white male journalists" being attacked. It's the whole point of his column and the fact that you need to change it's point to fit reality is the reason it should be gone as fringe view. He's claiming that the privileged white males are being mocked and attacked and that's his view of white male journalists. --DHeyward (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way about the article, but that doesn't change my mind about your edit. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward: the point of the article is not that white male journalists take a risk by speaking out, it's that women and people of color take a great risk by speaking out and that #NotYourShield was a cynical (though unsuccessful) ploy to silence their allies. “And in the aggregate it makes it easier for women to get disproportionate harassment without resistance, and forces women to bear more of the burden of speaking out. And silencing women in the industry gets that much easier.” MarkBernstein (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

And that's pretty much mainstream view not fringe. See also, "White Knight" and "SJW", phrases used to try and mock "privileged people for their pious hypocrisy". — Strongjam (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The importance of speaking up in support for people who are unjustly attacked is proverbial and widely shared outside the caves of GamerGate; it's hardly fringe. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

However, we cannot do that on Wikipedia. Personally as individual editors that the attacks they've gotten are an afront to moral code, but Wikipedia is amoral and neutral, neither sympathetic for victims or condemining those that harassed. It is not our place to speak up in support in WP's voice, though we certainly can use the press's responses that in their words speak to their defense. We're trying to be objective here. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The point is that it's not a fringe view that Chu holds. Nothing more. — Strongjam (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph starts with To respond to widespread criticism of their movement as misogynistic, Gamergate supporters adopted a second Twitter hashtag, #NotYourShield, to claim that some women and minorities in the gaming community were also critical of Quinn and Sarkeesian, and argue that accusations of misogyny should not be used as a shield against criticism. How are you reconciling that sourced statement with Chu's view that NotYourShield was really about silencing white men? Why are there no other sources saying NotYourShield was designed to silence privileged white men? --DHeyward (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A) They're not mutually exclusive. B) The Telegraph talks about this exact thing. — Strongjam (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

All sources (including Chu) agree that #NotYourShield was intended to deter allies of Gamergate victims from speaking out. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Telegraph doesn't mention white men (except as gamers) and certainly doesn't say the #NotYourShield is silencing white me (or anyone) - Quinn, in the article, takes the position that it silences minorities, but that's not Chu's view as he specifically laments privileged people being silenced. Again, what other sources besides Chu think that the #NotYourShield campaign was created to silence privileged white males? No source that I've seen says anything other than #NotYourShield was created as a counter to the "misogynist" label. That's in every source except Chu. --DHeyward (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Chu assumes that his readers understand the premise that racism and sexism are deeply related -- that the misogyny of Gamergate reflects a hostility to the Other, one altogether too familiar in matters of race as well as gender. This has been widely understood since the 1970s. To silence one minority is to silence other minorities; to try to drive one group -- women -- out of the computer industry is to target other minorities as well. “First they came for the socialists...“ MarkBernstein (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That may be a good argument. It's not Chu's, though. His argument is that #NotYourShield drives away privileged white male voices because #NotYourShield is used by women and minorities. Privileged white males are reluctant to speak out against women and minorities even to support other women and minorities. That's the whole point of his essay if you read it and is why he says privileged white males are necessary allies. That's a different view than the other sources. --DHeyward (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Chu puts no more veracity to the fallicy that #notyoursocks are actually women and people of color than anyone else. He is stating that it was a ploy to prevent people from standing up for the women targeted by Gamergate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of who #NotYourShield is, Chu only speaks about its effect on white male voices and how it silenced them. --DHeyward (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you point is here - 1) white male voices that are trying to support women and minorities being attacked by GG with weaponized white guilt ala #notyourshield? or 2) white guilt in general? If 1), you're not being very clear, if 2), outside the scope of this article. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)