Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:43, 4 December 2014 view sourceNorthBySouthBaranof (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers33,477 edits →Daily Caller: rp← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:19, 26 December 2024 view source Sangdeboeuf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users53,302 edits →top: External link(s) 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Pp-semi-indef}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{pp-move-indef}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 500K
|counter = 15
|minthreadsleft = 9
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(2d)
|archive = Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Controversial}} {{Talk header}}
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|gg|1RR=yes|protection=ecp}}
{{Calm}}
{{Not a forum}} {{trolling}}
{{tmbox|text=The purpose of this talk page is to host ongoing discussion among interested editors regarding the ] article itself. '''This page is not for discussing this talk page itself or any other meta-discussion; use the '']'' subpage for that.''' The subpage's creation is an Arbitration Enforcement action. Info on changes to the reference list are here: '']''.}}
{{blp}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{tmbox
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|collapsed=yes|class=C|1=
|image = none
{{WikiProject Video games|class=c |importance=Mid}}
|text =
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=Low}}
<div style='font-size:medium; text-align:center;'>'''Draft Article'''</div><p><div style='text-align:center;'>While this article is fully protected until editing disputes are resolved, there is a draft article which can be used to develop the content at ]. This talk page can be used to make suggestions to the draft article. Please note that the draft article may fall within the scope of ] and that edits made to the draft article might be subject to sanctions. Please see {{template|Gamergate sanctions}} for more info.</div>
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=Low}}
|style = background:#AADBE0; border: 1px solid #00477B<!--; border-radius: 15px-->;
{{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid |Social movements=yes}}
}} }}
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{Old moves
{{WikiProject Video games|class=C|importance=High}}
| from1 = Gamergate controversy
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=C|importance=Mid}}
| destination1 = Gamergate movement
{{WikiProject Journalism|class=C|importance=Low}}
| result1 = Not moved
{{WikiProject Internet culture|class=C|importance=High}}
| link1 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 28#Requested move 14 February 2015
}}
| date1 = February 14, 2014
{{faq|collapsed=no}}
{{Press
| author = ]
| title = Twitter and the poisoning of online debate
| org = ]
| url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29642313
| date = 16 October 2014
| quote = "I am not going into the rights and wrongs of Gamergate here - there is what looks like a factual account of this interminable saga on Misplaced Pages, although of course there have been disputes about its objectivity."
| author2 = David Jenkins
| title2 = 2014: Video gaming’s worst year ever
| org2 = ]
| url2 = http://metro.co.uk/2014/10/20/2014-video-gamings-worst-year-ever-4912543/
| date2 = 20 October 2014
| quote2 = "The Misplaced Pages entry is as good as any at explaining the basics, and shows how the whole movement is based on nothing but the ravings of a female developer’s ex-boyfriend and a level of misogyny that you’d find hard to credit existing in the Middle Ages, let alone the modern day." }}
{{Gamergate sanctions}}
{{round in circles}}
{{Archives}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=2|small=yes}}


| from2 = Gamergate controversy
{{Old AfD multi|page=GamerGate|date=6 September 2014|result='''keep'''}}
| destination2 = Gamergate
| result2 = Not moved
| link2 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 13#Requested moves
| date2 = November 12, 2014


| from3 = Gamergate controversy
== RFC: Can an article be too biased in favor of near-universal sourcing of one side of an issue? (Gamergate controversy) ==
| destination3 = Gamergate harassment campaign
| result3 = Not moved
| link3 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 37#Requested move 15 May 2015
| date3 = May 15, 2015


| from4 = Gamergate controversy
See ]
| destination4 = Gamergate
| result4 = Withdrawn
| link4 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 45#Requested move 30 August 2015
| date4 = August 30, 2015


| from5 = Gamergate controversy
==Sanctions enforcement ==
| destination5 = Gamergate (sexist terrorism)
All articles related to the ]
| result5 = POINT close
| link5 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 46#Requested move 19 September 2015
| date5 = September 19, 2015


| from6 = Gamergate controversy
Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: ]
| destination6 = Gamergate (harassment campaign)
| result6 = Moved
| link6 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 60#Requested move 12 August 2021
| date6 = August 12, 2021


| from7 = Gamergate (harassment campaign)
<!--Purposefully not signed to eliminate the auto archiving. TheRedPenOfDoom.-->
| result7 = Not moved
| link7 = Talk:Gamergate (ant)/Archive 3#Requested move 20 August 2021
| date7 = August 20, 2021
}}
{{Old MfD |date=23 June 2017 |result='''redirect''' |page=Draft:Gamergate controversy |altpage=Draft:Gamergate controversy}}
{{Old AfD multi| date = 6 September 2014 | result = '''Keep''' | page = GamerGate | date2 = 23 November 2015 | result2 = '''speedy keep''' | page2 = Gamergate controversy}}
{{Copied
|from1 = Draft:Gamergate controversy
|from_oldid1 = 638615388
|to1 = Gamergate controversy
|to_diff1 = 638642070
|to_oldid1 = 638639983


|from2 = Draft:Gamergate controversy
==Suggestion about "Operation Disrespectful Nod"==
|from_oldid2 = 644251654
We should elborate the part "members launched a campaign to convince ad providers to pull support from sites critical of Gamergate". There are sources<ref>http://www.inquisitr.com/1561606/gamergate-gawker-loses-bmw-mercedes-and-adobe-advertising-due-to-bullying-gamers/</ref><ref>http://digiday.com/brands/gamergate-experiences-mixed-success/</ref><ref>http://www.businessinsider.com/adobe-pulls-gawker-sponsorship-2014-10</ref> that describe Gawker becoming the target largely because of the bullying comments. My proposed edit was "members launched a campaign to convince ad providers to pull support from sites that allegedly condone bullying and are critical of Gamergate" and I feel like the edit is small and relevant enough to be included despite us trying to bring the article down in size. ] (]) 16:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
|to2 = Gamergate controversy
:Doesn't the bullying claims apply only to Gawker, also I moved to a different section, I was to keep my discussion general. ]] 16:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
|to_diff2 = 644253492
::It seems to be mainly Gawker, but they have also been the primary target during the last month or so. It seems dishonest to not include the detail. I'd be fine with noting that the bullying backlash was against Gawker specifically, but that might take too much space and we're already lacking. ] (]) 16:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
|to_oldid2 = 644248467
:::the most reliable of the sources you list says that it is a "'''joke''' about bullying" that caused people to get their panties all twisted and . -- ] 16:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
::::It was not perceived as a joke by those in GamerGate so their reason for targeting the advertisers was to still go against bullying. Also, regarding that Twitter link, haven't you yourself said that linking websites like that is pointless even on the talk page because their source value is nonexistent? If you want to use it to support your argument, you need to allow the same from others. ] (]) 17:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::I thought GG was about journalistic ethics? -- ] 18:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::You don't think journalists posting support for bullying is unethical? Regardless, can we get back on topic? ] (]) 18:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::I see the joke as hysterically satirical albiet "tone deaf" ; but not connecting with "ethics" in any meaningful way, nor as a personal twit as connecting with "journalism" in any way. -- ] 18:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:No, I think what we have is just fine. Stating that Gawker "allegedly supports bullying" based upon a tweet that was in bad taste, but was an obvious joke, is unsupported nonsense. The sources you have listed are marginal, at best, compared to the existing sources we have in the section. If anything, that section should be trimmed down at this point, as it's a bit of ], really. The media has stopped paying attention and it doesn't seem to have materially affected Gawker. ] (]) 18:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
::This was not a single tweet, but multiple tweets. Other people from the network also showed support. It received a very large focus from GamerGate. Furthermore, it seems odd to say that the media has stopped paying attention to this when several articles on the topic have been released during the last four days alone. As for Gawker not having been materially affected, an article by Gawker itself<ref>http://gawker.com/how-we-got-rolled-by-the-dishonest-fascists-of-gamergat-1649496579</ref> states that they have lost thousands and could even lose millions. Full quote: "I've been told that we've lost thousands of dollars already, and could potentially lose thousands more, if not millions." ] (]) 21:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:::You say that "it received a very large focus from Gamergate" — that may be so, but that doesn't appear to have translated into anything actually meaningful. Gawker wrote that post a month ago, there's been no follow-up coverage and the matter appears to be a dead letter as far as the sources go. ] (]) 21:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Considering that the contacting of the advertisers is featured on this article and this is the most high profile aspect of it, it should be included. ] (]) 22:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::I don't understand what you're asking, then. We already include a discussion of the fact that Gamergate supporters have contacted advertisers. ] (]) 23:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::The description is very lacking because it overlooks the main reason for contacting Gawker's advertisers. ] (]) 23:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|NorthBySouthBaranof}} Considering how many times I have see that issue about space, why not just split the article and leave the important details on this page? --] (]) 04:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


}}
:::Split the article into...what? We don't do ] around here. ] (]) 13:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
{{Press
::::I believe he just means that some aspects of the controversy could be split into separate articles in order to cut down on the main article. You're reading too much into it. That said, I'm not sure if the aspects are noteworthy enough on their own. The only one that I could imagine being split is the very case of "Operation Disrespectful Nod" and even then I'm on the edge. ] (]) 15:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
|author=Alex Hern|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/23/wikipedia-bans-editors-from-gender-related-articles-amid-gamergate-controversy|title=Misplaced Pages votes to ban some editors from gender-related articles|date=January 23, 2015|org=]
:::::The problem is, there is no sub parts of the controversy that could be logically split off and significantly reduce article length. I really don't think there is a way to split this. ]] 16:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
|author2=]|url2=https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/14/if-we-took-gamergate-harassment-seriously-pizzagate-might-never-have-happened/|date2=December 14, 2016|title2=If we took 'Gamergate' harassment seriously, 'Pizzagate' might never have happened|org2=]
|author3=]|url3=http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/02/wikipedia_gamergate_scandal_how_a_bad_source_made_wikipedia_wrong_about.html|title3=The Misplaced Pages Ouroboros|org3=Slate|date3=February 5, 2015
|author4=Dabitch|url4=http://adland.tv/adnews/wikipedia-perpetual-native-ad-machine/255028968|title4=Misplaced Pages: the perpetual motion native ad machine|org4=Adland|date4=February 5, 2015
|author5=Lauren C. Williams|url5=https://thinkprogress.org/wikipedia-wants-to-ban-feminists-from-editing-gamergate-articles-updated-6624e8987048#.6imluhnjw|org5=ThinkProgress|title5=Misplaced Pages Wants To Ban Feminists From Editing GamerGate Articles (Updated)|date5=January 26, 2015|archiveurl5=https://web.archive.org/web/20180929000042/https://thinkprogress.org/wikipedia-wants-to-ban-feminists-from-editing-gamergate-articles-updated-6624e8987048/|archivedate5=September 29, 2018
|author6=Daniel Greenfield|url6=http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/263914/gawker-editor-gamergate-was-our-most-effective-daniel-greenfield|title6=Gawker Editor: Gamergate Was Our Most Effective Enemy|org6=]|date6=August 20, 2016|archiveurl6=https://archive.ph/1GbLp|archivedate6=21 August 2016


|author7 = Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv
::::::{{ping|Tarc|Eldritcher|Halfhat}} Now that some time has passed, I kind of regret my suggestion though I do believe that something needs to be done in relation to the size issue that comes up every few days. To clarify my question, what I meant was that we have an article with only the important details for the reader with a second article with an expanded focus on the details of the topic. (To be honest, I believe that I might have jumbled up how ] with ] work together with an article with a separate article on an event related to the first.) After hearing what was said and what I believe, I realized what I am asking might be closer to an addendum than two split articles. Having reread ] and ], I feel like the article needs a split and that we cannot do a split at this time since we lack enough details. Still, thanks for the replies and sorry for the confusion. --] (]) 06:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
|title7 = Go ahead and use Misplaced Pages for research
:::::::I think what needs done is to cut out a lot of the "Such and such said (s)he thought". However one of the problems here is people will start accusing you of POV pushing, well especially someone like me who's pretty involved and been accused of being an SPA. Maybe we should ask for uninvolved editors to come in and suggest what should be cut. ]] 08:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
|date7 = October 17, 2024
::::::::Well, there might be issues with how to bring uninvolved editors in, but I would say that it is a very good option. Would it need to be done through an RfC? --] (]) 05:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
|org7 = ]
{{reflist-talk}}
|url7 = https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/17/opinion/use-wikipedia-reliable-source/

|lang7 =
== Scrap/Rewrite? ==
|quote7 =

|archiveurl7 =
With all the changes that have happened over the course of the movement, would a scrap of the article as it is now, and a complete rewrite (Taking much of the talking points and notes into consideration) be warranted? I'm not the best writer, but I'll see what I can come up with just to field the idea and link it somewhere when I'm not at work. (Which I am now.) ] (]) 08:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
|archivedate7 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
:I have thought about that, and someone has put work into a possible one, https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Kaciemonster/gamergate . I had some early involvement but ended up going back to working on the main. ]] 14:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
|accessdate7 = October 18, 2024
::<s>That's a terrible draft</s> There are major issues with the draft. BLP claims—including criminal accusations—cited to self-published and unreliable sources (which ]). Also issues with UNDUE, where it seems like every part of the controversy gets eight sentences in two paragraphs, no matter how significant or insignificant. ] (]) 15:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
|collapsed=no
::Agree with Woodroar. Calling false accusations the "Quinnspiracy" rather than "False accusations" is right out. ] (]) 18:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
}}
:::I'll give it a go on Monday morning sometime after my shift ends, or tomorrow (Sunday, Nov 30). It may not change anything, but with Gamergate largely having run its course, it might not hurt to start over with the entry. At the very least, it would help get some of the info included in the talk page, included in the entry itself. There are several good points that have been raised, both pro and against the movement, it's just a matter of sorting out the (to use a saying from my home) "bat shit crazy" from the ones that are valid points. One example being the Newsweek articles, and the counter to their statistical analysis. There's a link to that somewhere, but I can't find it right now. ] (]) 05:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
{{Top 25 Report|Oct 19 2014 (19th)}}
::::Scrapping the entire article seems a bit extreme (and fairly unnecessary); the basic structure of the current / draft article is good. It goes into too much depth on certain tangential side-controversies and it has a bit too much back-and-forth claim-counterclaim with quotes, but those are things that can easily be fixed by trimming down unnecessary bits. --] (]) 17:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
}}
:::::Chalk the wording of the talk here up to me working a god awful shift and half asleep. Basically what I'm suggesting is taking the tangential controversies out, paring things down to the base controversy of GamerGate. In a way, starting over, but based on all the information to this point. I've a few drafts of certain sections that I've done recently, and will post them shortly. ] (]) 21:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
{{page views}}

{{section sizes}}
::::::If we are going to do a rewrite I'd suggest waiting until there is some writing about in hindsight (and if there isn't then I think we'd need a serious discussion about whether to keep this). ]] 09:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
{{Refideas|state=collapsed

| {{cite book |last=Beyer |first=Jessica L. |chapter=Trolls and Hacktivists: Political Mobilization from Online Communities |date=2021 |title=The Oxford Handbook of Digital Media Sociology |editor-last=Rohlinger |editor-first=Deana A. |publisher=Oxford University Press |doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197510636.013.47 |isbn=978-0-19-751063-6 |editor2-last=Sobieraj |editor2-first=Sarah |pages=417–442}}
==Protected edit request Nov. 29, 2014==
| {{cite book |last=Condis |first=Megan |title=Gaming Masculinity: Trolls, Fake Geeks, and the Gendered Battle for Online Culture |year=2018 |publisher=University of Iowa Press |isbn=978-1-6093-8566-8 |pages=95–106 |jstor=j.ctv3dnq9f.12 |chapter=From #GamerGate to Donald Trump: Toxic Masculinity and the Politics of the Alt-Right}}

| {{cite news |last=Dewey |first=Caitlin |author-link=Caitlin Dewey |date=2016-02-17 |title=In the battle of Internet mobs vs. the law, the Internet mobs have won |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/02/17/in-the-battle-of-internet-mobs-vs-the-law-the-internet-mobs-have-won/ |url-status=live |work=] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230710005803/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/02/17/in-the-battle-of-internet-mobs-vs-the-law-the-internet-mobs-have-won/ |archive-date=2023-07-10 |access-date=2024-01-22 |url-access=limited}}
Add new section "Further reading" with link
| {{cite book |last1=Donovan |first1=Joan |last2=Dreyfuss |first2=Emily |last3=Friedberg |first3=Brian |title=Meme Wars: The Untold Story of the Online Battles Upending Democracy in America |date=2022 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |location=New York |isbn=978-1-63-557864-5}}

| {{cite book |last=Jones |first=Bethan |editor=Booth, Paul |title=A Companion to Media Fandom and Fan Studies |year=2018 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |location=Hoboken, N.J. |isbn=978-1-1192-3716-7 |pages=415–429 |doi=10.1002/9781119237211.ch26 |chapter=#AskELJames, Ghostbusters, and #Gamergate: Digital Dislike and Damage Control |chapter-url=https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/epdf/10.1002/9781119237211.ch26 |chapter-format=PDF |chapter-url-access=registration |via=]}}
* Gurney Halleck, www.historyofgamergate.com/
| {{cite book |last=Kidd |first=Dustin |title=Social Media Freaks: Digital Identity in the Network Society |date=2018 |publisher=Routledge |location=New York |isbn=978-0-4299-7691-9 |chapter=GamerGate: Gender Perspectives on Social Media}}

| {{cite book |last1=O'Donnell |first1=Jessica |title=Gamergate and Anti-Feminism in the Digital Age |date=2022 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |location=Cham |isbn=978-3-031-14057-0 |pages=179–222 |doi=10.1007/978-3-031-14057-0_6 |chapter=Changes Following Gamergate |chapter-url=https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-14057-0_6 |chapter-url-access=registration |via=]}}
Nice documented presentation of the pro-gg perspective. ] (]) 16:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
| {{cite book |last1=O'Donnell |first1=Jessica |title=Gamergate and Anti-Feminism in the Digital Age |date=2022 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |location=Cham |isbn=978-3-031-14057-0 |pages=63–107 |doi=10.1007/978-3-031-14057-0_3 |chapter=Gamers and Gamergate |chapter-url=https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-14057-0_3 |chapter-url-access=registration |via=]}}

| {{cite book |editor1-last=Reyman |editor1-first=Jessica |editor2-last=Sparby |editor2-first=Erika |title=Digital Ethics: Rhetoric and Responsibility in Online Aggression |date=2020 |publisher=Routledge |location=New York |series=Routledge Studies in Rhetoric and Communication |isbn=978-0-367-21795-2 |edition=1st |doi=10.4324/9780429266140 |s2cid=189982687}}
:Would seem to run afoul of several aspects ] that frown upon blogs and self-promotional websites, so I would oppose this. ] (]) 17:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
| {{cite book |last=Ruffino |first=Paolo |title=Future Gaming: Creative Interventions in Video Game Culture |date=2018 |publisher=Goldsmiths Press |location=London |isbn=978-1-90-689755-0 |pages=104–119 |chapter=GamerGate: Becoming Parasites to Gaming}}
*'''Oppose''' per ], particularly given the unverified/false accusations and insinuations regarding living people contained in the page. We have no reason to link to a page that furthers Gamergate's harassment campaigns against Zoe Quinn. ] (]) 18:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
| {{cite journal |last=Salter |first=Michael |title=From Geek Masculinity to Gamergate: The Technological Rationality of Online Abuse |journal=Crime, Media, Culture |date=2018 |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=247–264 |doi=10.1177/1741659017690893 |issn=1741-6604}}
*'''Comment''' ] is a character in the Dune series of SF books, by Frank Herbert. Does WP allow pseudonymous sourcing?] (]) 14:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
| {{cite book |last1=Veale |first1=Kevin |title=Gaming the Dynamics of Online Harassment |date=2020 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |location=Cham |isbn=978-3-030-60410-3 |pages=1–33 |doi=10.1007/978-3-030-60410-3_1 |chapter=Introduction: The Breadth of Harassment Culture and Contextualising Gamergate |chapter-url=https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-60410-3_1 |chapter-format=PDF |chapter-url-access=registration |via=]}}
** ''If'' it were the case that this semi-anonymous, self-published essay gained significant attention in reliable sources, we would consider it a possibility to include. (Another case, but not here, is if it was an essay published in a reliable source, but the author opted to say anonymous per request, that would be a possibility). But we're not here with that yet. --] (]) 19:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
| {{cite book |last1=Wilson |first1=Katie |editor1-last=Booth |editor1-first=Paul |title=A Companion to Media Fandom and Fan Studies |date=2018 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |location=Hoboken, N.J. |isbn=978-1-119-23721-1 |pages=431–445 |doi=10.1002/9781119237211.ch27 |chapter=Red Pillers, Sad Puppies, and Gamergaters |chapter-url=https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/epdf/10.1002/9781119237211.ch27 |chapter-format=PDF |chapter-url-access=registration |via=]}}
***Per ], this will never be an external link on Misplaced Pages. '''External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. ... Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and, when including such links in other articles, make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy.''' The material being linked to is in flagrant violation of BLP. ] (]) 19:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
| {{cite book |last1=Zuckerberg |first1=Donna |title=Not All Dead White Men: Classics and Misogyny in the Digital Age |date=2018 |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0-6749-8982-5 |pages=}}

}}
* I reckon I'm starting to see why the ProGGers have a beef with "ownership" and House POV issues with this article if something as temperate and well documented as that link is tossed aside for apparently ideological reasons or a specious reading of our BLP policies (take your pick). ] (]) 18:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config
::Not sure what you expected. ] is quite clear that links like this should be avoided. It's a personal webpage from a pseudonymous writer with no established authority on the subject. — ] (]) 19:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
::What part of "self-published defamatory claims about living people aren't permitted in external links" is unclear? It doesn't matter how "temperate" you believe it's written - this is an anonymous blog which presents defamatory claims about living people, and as such, is clearly prohibited by policy from being used as an external link.
|maxarchivesize = 150K
::We don't put anonymous external links in ] that say "Barack Obama is a Marxist Muslim Communist usurper," so I'm not sure why you think we should put anonymous external links in ] that make similarly-defamatory accusations against Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson. ] (]) 19:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
|counter = 62
:::Just read the article, and yeah, there are definite BLP issues. There are claims and flat out assertions there that if written in Misplaced Pages would be (and have been) rev-deleted. There is no way this is linked to in the article. — ] (]) 19:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
|minthreadsleft = 4

|algo = old(30d)
== Protected edit request, 1 December 2014 ==
|archive = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive %(counter)d
{{editprotected|ans=y}}
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
Uncontroversial spelling correction - our article currently says "Nathan Greyson" in the lead, but the correct spelling is "Nathan Grayson," as per . ] (]) 19:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
:{{done}} &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 20:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
}}

__TOC__
== Lede improvement ==
Moved from the Gamergate ArbCom thing for a chance for a productive discussion. ] believes that the first paragraph of the article unduly concludes "that a fringe position is the dominant cultural view of gaming," and while I don't quite see how he's reading that, I think I feel what he's getting at, and if we can make things clearer, we should. I'll not put words in his mouth and will let DHeyward explain in more detail if he so chooses (and I hope he will). ] (]) 07:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:The opening sentence is {{tq|"The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and concerns misogyny and harassment in video game culture. While many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism, the overwhelming majority of commentators have said that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture."}} The premise outlined in the ArbCom case by NBSB is that gamergater supporters are a small, fringe element ({{tq|If the article does not make clear that "Gamergate" does not represent all gamers (rather, it is a small fringe within the community), then I agree with you that we should make that distinction clearer.}}. I believe that was accurate. The opening line attributes it to "video game culture" in general. It says "the movement is rooted in a culture war against women." I do not know how the view that gamergate is a fringe element is juxtaposed against the wider community without any of the fringe coverage rules. If it's fringe, why aren't we using ] as the guideline and balancing the fringe gamergate harassment? Why don't we say that a "small, fringe minority of gamergate supporters engaged in harassment and misogyny." My counter example was 9/11 hijackers and Islam. Coverage at the time was not lacking in the religious identification of the terrorists. However, I hope we would recognize that they were fringe and treat their form of religious observance as generally unrelated to Islam as it is a fringe expression. It would be quite offensive to use a specific terrorist attack as a springboard to a more general discussion about Islam. Either the article is about the fringe harassment campaign, in which case the fringe aspect is missing. Or it's a mainstream article on video game culture, in which case the fringe harassment shouldn't be the prominent lead-in sentence. --] (]) 09:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC) --] (]) 09:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::That's a good point. Perhaps other editors could comment also, as well as a reply from North. ]] ''']''' 09:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::(ec) Yeah, actually, I see what you're saying here, and I think I get where the confusion is coming from. It's definitely true that the really severe harassment/misogyny comes from a fringe element, but the entire movement is seen as being tainted by an inability or unwillingness to repudiate or move beyond that misogynistic harassment, and that became a springboard for reliable sources to discuss broader issues of ], which ''are'' viewed as longstanding problems in a wide part of the community (so much so that we have an article about it). In fact, why don't we just straight-up go with that? {{tq|"The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and resulted in widespread debate about issues of ]."}} ] (]) 09:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:::North, could you clarify, you are proposing that change to the first sentence, and no changes to the second sentence? ]] ''']''' 10:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::::Yes, that's correct. I think the second sentence adequately sums up what each side claims. Stating the mainstream argument that Gamergate is "a culture war against women" is more or less properly repeating the argument that it's ''misogynist'' but in perhaps a less inflammatory way, and we use "misogyny" a bunch in the second paragraph so much so that I think the point is well and truly made at any rate. ] (]) 10:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:This goes back to a point I made a few months ago, that at the core, there are actually two controversies that are named Gamergate, but which once is dominate depends on who you ask: there is the controversy as it exists from the GG side, in which they believe there's ethics issues in journalism and want to correct that, but with the fact that harassment has occurred and tainted their message; and there is the much more predominate controversy over the movement itself (not the issues it raises) by the press about the use of harassment and threats to try to affect journalism or even just to silence opponents. The article does not presently do a good job making this distinction. As I've suggested before, we should piece the central topic - which controversy is key - and write the article to clearly make sure it is understand that the presentation of details is towards ''that'' controversy.
:It would seem obvious per COMMONNAME that this article should be about the "controversy over the Gamergate movement", in which case saying that controversy is about sexism and misogyny is correct. While it would be more impartial to frame the article as the "controversy from the Gamergate side" or as the "Gamergate movement" (in which we would start with establishing their FRINGE position before moving onto the harassment issues and strong criticism against it), that's going to be a lot more difficult to write towards without it being too much of a soapbox for GG particularly due to the lack of sourcing. --] (]) 15:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::Except that, as far as I can tell none of the ] that have covered this subject are saying that there are two controversies, and it is the RS on any subject that then informs the page and its contents. Whilst I have no doubt that you sincerely believe that there are two controversies going under the name 'Gamergate', unless this can be backed up using RS then it remains ] and, I'm afraid to say, unable to used in Misplaced Pages.
::Yes, many the RS used in the article do state that the stated objectives and claims of Gamergate supporters are ''x''; however, given that ''x'' has already been included in the article (and there isn't enough evidence from RS to spin off ''x'' into a new page), I do not see how trying to create two separate pages on the Gamergate controversy can achieve anything, except maybe accidentally remove or silence the requisite balance already included in the page.--] (]) 17:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:::This is more the analysis and a mindset from our side as WP editors as to how we write the article in a manner that makes it clear what the topic ''is''. Right now, much of the problem is that proGG side come in expecting to read about ''their'' controversy, and see instead the article based on the opinion, because the lead does not make that clear. If said, first sentence "GG is a controversy surrounding actions of the Gamergate movement that involved issues of sexism and misogyny" (not that exact wording but just highlighting the distinctions), then the angle that we're talking to write about the article would be crystal clear, and would help structure the article better (identifying what we can of GG movement's fringe view as to then proceeed into the massive amount of criticism and condemnation it has garnered). And no, absolutely not suggesting two pages; the two controversies are forever attached to each other so separation makes no sense in addition to sourcing issues. --] (]) 18:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::::The purpose of our article is not to make everyone who visits it happy; I daresay there are plenty of articles here that make visitors unhappy. But I think that if we go by the reliable sources it's clear that Gamergate's ''notability'' comes primarily from harassment, which means it should be the main focus of our article -- outside of the harassment, it's just a few thousand people shouting at each other on Twitter and 8chan, so it's hardly surprising that that has no coverage. I think that there's also disagreements over what constitutes "harassment" -- my impression is that most of the reliable sources discussing harassment in the article include things like spreading debunked rumors about people in order to destroy their reputation, or having huge mobs of people constantly focus waves of tweets on people who have earned GG's ire for one reason or another. If you include that, I think it's reasonable to say that the majority of GG is about harassment, at least in the sense that that's most of what the hashtag is used for... and this is why there's so many reliable sources characterizing it that way. People within Gamergate (the people who, as you're saying, come to this article and are unhappy because they feel it portrays them in a negative light) would probably argue that those things aren't harassment -- that the accusations are true, that they're just talking to those people, that having a bunch of people insulting you on Twitter when you offend them is just a normal part of being on the internet, etc -- but we have to go by what the reliable sources say, and they characterize the ''majority'' of what's done under the #Gamergate tag as harassment, not just a small minority.

::::More importantly, maybe, my impression (and what I think most of the more reliable sources say) is that the ''second'' goal -- the ethics goal -- is primarily about a culture war against so-called SJWs and feminism in particular (what was once called "political correctness", too, although that terms seems to have mostly fallen out of use). If you read the RSes in the article that have taken the time to read and analyze the various Gamergate manifestos and focus on the reddit and forums where they congregate, it's reasonably clear that that what Gamergate means when they say "corruption" in gaming is, usually, "feminists and SJWs advancing their wicked agenda", with the movement as a whole being marked by a total fixation on anything it can use as a line of attack against those ideological enemies, and near-total disinterest in anything that doesn't involve attacking them. Again, it's more an argument over definitions than a focus on different parts of the movement -- people within Gamergate feel that its primary targets have committed major ethical breaches, while most of the sources from outside it feel that they haven't and that Gamergate is targeting them for ideological reasons. (And, of course, this ties back into the first point, in that when commentators dismiss the ethical breaches Gamergate is fixated on as clearly trivial-to-nonexistent, that means that constantly trying to use them to attack the reputation of individuals becomes, at least in the eyes of the media, a form of harassment.)

::::Obviously any movement covers a diverse range of people with many different goals, but I think that if we go by the more reliable sources GG's two threads are harassment and *culture war*, not harassment and ethics. And these two goals are much more tightly connected than you're suggesting, since again, it's the harassment that has given them notability and has elevated their culture war to public attention. Most of the unhappy Gamergate people you allude to would probably define their role as "defending" in this culture war rather than attacking, but I suspect that even the majority of people affiliated with it wouldn't disagree with an assessment saying that they're focused on confronting feminists and SJWs who keep unethically by bringing their ideology into games and game reviews -- most of the Gamergate sources we have in the article seem to be saying that, and it's the assessment of every journalist who has gone into the main GG subreddits and forums. I even think that most people in GG would agree that Gamergate itself is generally focused on doing many of the things that our reliable sources are lumping under harassment, ''as long as it's not described as harassment'' -- confronting their enemies on Twitter, attacking the reputations of a few specific journalists and developers, etc. So the debate is not really over "which part" of Gamergate to focus on, as it is over how to characterize its actions and views. Now obviously movements are broad and have lot of people, and I'm sure that there are people who think of themselves as a part of Gamergate and who aren't obsessed with SJWs and feminists and who don't participate in even the broadly-defined sort of "harassment" I outlined above... but we need to cover what the reliable sources say, and they're nearly unanimous that Gamergate is a movement based around using harassment ''by that definition'' and that it is not concerned with ethics beyond the extremely narrow so-called "anti-politics-in-gaming" scope necessary to fight back against what they see as their political enemies. I think part of the issue is a culture-clash between 4chan / 8chan culture and the rest of the world, where what 4chan sees as harassment is very very different from what the NYT sees as harassment. But I'm not sure how many sources have focused on that particular angle. --] (]) 18:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::''"And no, absolutely not suggesting two pages; the two controversies are forever attached to each other so separation makes no sense in addition to sourcing issues."''</br>Sorry about that, for some reason my brain read your post as suggesting two separate pages. I blame a combination of flu and chemo for my reading failure.--] (]) 18:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Beautifully put, Aquillion. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::I endorse everything Aquillion said above, and there's no need for me to try and repeat this excellent summation of the issue. There is a reason that reliable sources have dismissed the "ethics in gaming journalism" line, and it is not that every reliable source is part of a vast, insidious conspiracy against Gamergate. ] (]) 18:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::The thing here is that do we absolutely need to say "harassment and misogyny" in the first sentence when it can be stated in the second (or a third) sentence of the lead without losing any other context/weight/etc? Because it ''is'' a debatable issue between the key party (the proGG side) and the way the press reports, stating that issue in the very first sentences sets a tone that is unencyclopedic. Waiting for one more sentence, or even adding a third to read better, doesn't change the weight, doesn't change the predominate viewpoint, but simply makes the article less aggressive from the start and puts use in a neutral stance on the matter.
::::::Eg {{green|The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 in video game culture. While many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism, the overwhelming majority of commentators have said that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture. The movement has been broadly condemned by mass media as sexist and misogynistic due to continued harassment and threats made under the Gamergate hashtag, targeting primarily female individuals in the video game industry.}} Everything is still there, it sets the stage for the rest of the article, but it avoids us (WP) from stating in WP's voice what the controversy is about, but atttributing it to the proper groups in the second and third sentences. --] (]) 19:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::We do need to reference sexism in the first sentence, because that is what the public controversy is about. That is essentially the only thing that non-GG reliable sources have examined. So I would modify your proposal thusly: {{green|The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 in video game culture, centering on issues of ]. While many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism, the majority of commentators have said that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture. The movement's targeting of primarily female individuals in the video game industry for harassment and threats has been broadly condemned as sexist and misogynistic.}} ] (]) 19:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::: I'd drop the "overwhelming majority of" bit. We don't need that many descriptors, and inevitably someone will drive-by tag it as <nowiki>{{citationneeded}}</nowiki>. — ] (]) 19:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::I think "the majority" can easily be defended, but "overwhelming" is unnecessary. Tweaked. ] (]) 19:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Instead of "sexism in video games" how about "gender issues in video games" (same link otherwise). Consider the proGG disagre about what they see as a strong push of feminist ideals into the vg culture. That's not so much sexism but it is a gender issue. Note that I am agreeing that something that is common to the whole issue that both sides have touched on is reasonable to include in the first sentence, and it's not that "sexism" is not appropriate but I think there's a more precise phrase we can use. --] (]) 19:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::The whole introductory section of our article discusses the background of the controversy, which is that the gaming community has long been viewed as having issues with sexist behaviors, tropes, etc. If we go all the way back to one of the very first reliable sources to examine Gamergate, '''' reported that {{tq|Sexism in gaming is a long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable problem. It’s also the crux of the industry’s biggest ongoing battle being waged on Twitter under the hashtag “#GamerGate.”}} I think "sexism in video games" is a fair and well-sourced descriptor for the lede. ] (]) 19:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::That's reasonable then. As noted, it's not that "sexism in video games" (or perhaps "sexism in the video game industry") is wrong, but it is probably the best word that covers all fundamental issues. --] (]) 19:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::: Gamergate has never been about sexism in gaming. That discussion has been going on for years. Gamergate is different because it started from slut-shaming and harassment of real life people about real-life events. Once you go beyond that, into sexism (or violence) in video games, it's no longer GG but a rabbit hole of history and a much larger social issue than gaming culture. The big names that have made GG mainstream issues are not gamers and their position cannot be attributed to gaming culture. Sommers and Baldwin, for instance are not representative of gaming culture. --] (]) 19:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::The reliable sources disagree with your opening sentence. (''The Telegraph''), (''The Week''), (''The New York Times''), (''BusinessWeek''), (CBS News), (''Time''), etc. etc. etc. The conclusion of reliable sources is that Gamergate has torn off the scab covering up a sexist undercurrent in video game culture. ] (]) 19:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::: Exactly the opposite. They acknowledge sexism has been an ongoing discussion for years and that this incident is defined by specific harassment from a small number of trolls. Sexism in gaming is background material for that, not lead material. --] (]) 19:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::No, it's precisely the point. Here, have another: (] News): {{tq|If you live with somebody who likes to play video games - and millions of adults do - you won't have escaped hearing about Gamergate. It's rocked the hundred billion-dollar video gaming industry with allegations of sexism and misogyny. It started with an allegation against a female gamer of sexual favours for good reviews and quickly turned into an all-out culture war.}} The public debate about Gamergate is about sexism and misogyny in the video gaming industry/community, full stop. ] (]) 20:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::: I think you've missed the bigger point by focusing about "ethics in journalism." That is not what we contrast in the opening sentence. We juxtapose harassment and misogyny by one fringe element of gamergate supporters against gaming culture as a whole. Is harassment and misogyny a fringe position or is it the mainstream position of gaming culture? If it's fringe, then we need to say it's fringe. The ethics argument might represent a large portion of gamergate supporters and can be juxtaposed against the smaller fringe element of harassers. But the real problem is the juxtaposition of harassers within the gaming community overall which is how we are framing the article. I think it shows that {{tq|"The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and concerns misogyny and harassment in video game culture."}} is simply wrong as "misogyny and harassment" is a fringe viewpoint in video game culture (so is "ethics in journalism"). That doesn't dismiss the harassment and misogyny occured just as an "ISIS suicide bomber" is a fringe expression if Islam. We wouldn't ever leap to news sources that link the religion of a billion people to a suicide bomber even though "Islamic State" is in every single reliable source. It's fringe and fringe says to be very careful in using news sources for recentism events. The false balance that gets repeated is the harassment and misogyny are more prominent that ethics in journalism so it's okay to label the entire culture. As it's fringe, the opening sentence could easily read {{tq|"The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and has been largely defined by a small, fringe group that harassed specific game developers and journalists."}} --] (]) 19:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

:::::::"Misogyny and harassment" is not a fringe position; it is the core of Gamergate, a fact which is supported by reliable sources. The lead cannot move away from that, if it is to be an introduction to the reader as to what the subject matter is. ] (]) 19:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Whose core position is "misogyny and harassment?" I missed that part. Is it just the fringe group of of harassers? Everything above says it's a fringe group that holds those views. If so, then GG is about a fringe group, not video game culture. If not, then it shouldn't be the lead sentence that links gaming culture to misogyny and harassment. --] (]) 19:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::It may not be the core position of any particular person you ask, but it is certainly the core of the events that have transpired (per RSes) and the core of what has made Gamergate notable in the first place (again per RSes). ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

===Formal proposal for consensus-gathering===
OK, here's what I formally propose:

{{tq|The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014, centering on a debate about ] in ]. While many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism, the majority of commentators have said that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture. Some Gamergate supporters are widely viewed as responsible for ongoing harassment and threats, targeting primarily women in the video game industry. These attacks have been broadly condemned as sexist and misogynistic by media, video gaming academics, industry and community figures.}}

This addresses DHeyward's concern — one which I believe is fair — that the current version does not properly attribute the "misogyny" and "harassment" aspects directly to the movement, and instead appears to apply it to video gaming culture as a whole. ] (]) 20:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:"broadly condemned by the mass media as..." (and possibly "ongoing harassment") but I feel that's an improvement without conceding away the majority viewpoint (keeping the right weight). --] (]) 20:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

:Not wild about it, but it is acceptable so that we can move forward. ] (]) 20:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

::I don't have precise wording, but I think it would be fair to indicate that the nature of the concerns about ethics in journalism revolve around treatment of sexism in video games. In other words, there's very little concern about mainstream game publishers influencing reviews in favor of traditional games with scantily clad babes; there is a lot of concern about an alleged force-feeding of anti-sexist ideology. Spit-balling here, maybe something like
::"While many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism, these concerns revolve around a perception that feminist views are being imposed on reviews by writers and editors, and a search for malfeasance by publishers (such as Gawker Publications and Kotaku) that advocate for less sexism in games." ] (]) 21:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::: "Being imposed on reviews" by the very people who write reviews? I haven't seen any statement of any kind -- reputable or otherwise -- from a writer or an editor saying they were forced to change the wording of a review to make it more in line with "feminist views." Reviewers remarking on issues of sexism in games are doing so entirely of their own accord, as is their right as reviewers expressing their own sentiments. If you are suggesting that outside forces have been pressuring reviewers and editors into denouncing sexism in games when they would not choose to do so on their own, I would like to see sources for that. ] (]) 21:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::::I think what he's saying is that that's the allegation (silly as it is) that Gamergate is putting forth. I think this proposal gets too much into the weeds for the lede — let's just say what Gamergate supporters think, say that pretty much everyone else thinks something else and leave it at that. Details of what Gamergate believes about "ethics in gaming journalism" can be expounded upon in the body text. ] (]) 21:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::That's why I'd like a clarification. As I understand it, Gamergate's position (to the extent that there is a unified position on anything in this "movement") is that reviewers ought not to be allowed to discuss sexism in reviews. This was the reasoning behind their boycott of a particular Bayonetta 2 review. As in, a reviewer saying that he or she finds a game sexist should be redacted to remove that sentiment from the review -- in effect, a pro-censorship position. The justification for this was that it was "unfair" to the game to mention sexist content and perhaps could negatively affect the developer bonuses to give them a lower review number due to sexism issues, because some companies have tied developer bonuses to a game's Metacritic score; thus, lowering a game's score due to finding it sexist is "unethical" because it unfairly reduces the devleper's income. I have had great difficulty in following the logic behind this thinking but since Msalt is proposing adding it I thought he might be able to explain and source it. ] (]) 22:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::The proposed lede looks okay to me. The only problem I have with it is that, as an opening paragraph, it feels a little clunky and its internal flow gets broken up in the second sentence. Maybe:

::::::{{tq|The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014, centering on a debate about ]. The majority of commentators have said that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture, but many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism. The movement's targeting of primarily female individuals in the video game industry for harassment and threats has been broadly condemned as sexist and misogynistic.}}

::::::as an alternative?--] (]) 22:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::The deeper mindset that I gather from reading proGG information is that they believe that they fear that there is a strong collusion by feminists and people that support them to drive the hard-core "gamer" out of video games and/or changing the demographic away from them; the things we do see like their request for disclosures or their demand for more "objective" reviews (eg leaving sexism or any other political/moral points out of it in favor of graphics and gameplay) are short-term steps towards exposing that. Some of the culture war stories we have sourced allude to this concern. Some of these concerns like the need to feed the MetaCritic beast is something they do share with journalists, but as well described, the tainting of GG by harassment is not helping in these legit aspects to be discussed in any manner. --] (]) 00:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
*If this "formal proposal" by North will add in Masem's addition of "condemned by the mass media" - then I support. ]] ''']''' 00:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::The phrase "mass media" pigeonholes the criticism, though — there's been pretty broad condemnation of the harassment from figures not just in the media, but in academia, the video games industry and gaming culture — which goes toward DHeyward's point of ensuring we don't conflate the small minority with the broader majority. I'm not opposed to some phrasing there, but "mass media" is not broad enough. How about {{tq|media, academics and video gaming figures}}? ] (]) 00:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::IMO it is very natural for others in the gaming industry to condemn harassment of game developers. Pardon my ignorance but could you inform me which are the condemnations coming from academics? ]] ''']''' 00:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::Well, there's the whole DiGRA thing, for one. and . Others: , , etc. ] (]) 00:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Okay, (I didn't listen to the Iowa one though and it's not condemned in words) the main problem I see is with "broadly condemned". I don't doubt that GamerGate is broadly condemned by those in the video games industry and the mass media, but would it be accurate to say that it is "broadly condemned" by academics? That would require many more examples. Perhaps if you cancel "broadly", then you can mention academics. ]] ''']''' 00:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::I would more say that we only have a couple data points so far from the academic side to say that is been condemned (if not broadly condemned), though that's not to say that this is likely the academics' position, simply a lack of sourcing for it. VG industry we can speak to, the mass media we can speak to, but we can't speak to academics. My only concern with adding a phrase of the type "by the mass media" is to make sure the "who" is addressed so they know exactly where to look in our article for sources to confirm, any clarification towards that point, I'm fine with. --] (]) 00:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::I can keep finding more sources if need be. , , , , , , etc. etc. How many would you like? Considering that the world of video gaming academia is not particularly huge, this is a significant cross-section. I don't think the statement should be particularly controversial — we can qualify by saying "gaming academics" if that narrows the field sufficiently. ] (]) 00:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Yeah okay you can leave in "broadly", and go with "gaming academics". ]] ''']''' 01:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Two quick things: first wordsmithing to remove the doubly-close "and" as well as grouping things better: "...condemned by the video game industry and academics, the media, and community figures as...". Second is a bit of small correct " The movement's harassment and threats, which have..." - we don't have 100% connection of the movement to harassment, but we do know the harassment was done under the GG banner. So instead "Harassment and threats generated by users under the Gamergate hashtag/banner, which have..." might be better. --] (]) 01:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::And if that second piece is reasonable, we should be able able to add "Harassment and threats....are sexist and misogynistic, and has considered to have tainted and overshadowed the movement's concerns." or some wording to re-add about how this has harmed the image of the movement, as this is a key point in the article. --] (]) 01:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Masem, I think if we go there, it's going to get way too much into the debate over "does Gamergate have legitimate concerns" which is a contentious discussion best left where it is, the third paragraph ] (]) 01:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::As much as it can be called a movement, the harassment has been attributed to it. That is, you can't enjoy the benefits of a single flag when you want them and, at the same time, deny collective responsibility when you don't want it. Proposing {{tq|Gamergate supporters are widely viewed as responsible for ongoing harassment and threats, targeting primarily women in the video game industry. These attacks have been broadly condemned as sexist and misogynistic by media, video gaming academics, industry and community figures.}} ] (]) 01:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::I understand and agree with the point, but I'm not 100% sure that we can say "GG supporters are widely views as responsible for ..."; many sources, at least as I take them, know that the main body of GG users aren't likely doing the harassment, but their inability to stop it, condemn it, or distance themselves from it makes them complicit in some reporters' view. Others take the view that GG is directly responsible. We know that whomever did the harassing inferred via hashtagging or the like, no question there. So perhaps "Harassment and threats performed under the GG name..." and then don't add the second suggestion. It doesn't factually say the movement's at fault but neither clears them, nor begs the question of their ethics like you said. --] (]) 02:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::{{green|The threats against Ms. Sarkeesian are the most noxious example of a weekslong campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry and its culture. The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage.}} That's from . The NYT directly attributes the threats and harassment to supporters of Gamergate. We're not saying ''all'' supporters of Gamergate, but they ''are'' supporters of Gamergate. "Performed under the GG name" infers that the harassment isn't ''really'' aligned with Gamergate, and that's the precise opposite of what the sources say. ] (]) 02:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::Changed the font to not confuse with proposed wording. I think ''allied with a broader movement'' as per the New York Times is the whole point. Perhaps {{tq|A portion of Gamergate supporters are widely viewed as responsible}}... etc. Actually there might be a small distinction between "allied with" and "is a part of" but I'm not too inclined to pursue that further. ]] ''']''' 03:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::True enough, Starship; I've tweaked it to "some." ] (]) 04:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I'm fine with "some" for purposes of lead brevity. --] (]) 04:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: We musnt get too far away from the analysis that the GG is purposefully maintaining a " 'plausible' deniability" organization strategy to maintain the visibility gained from the harassment while claiming that they cannot be held culpable. -- ] 13:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't think "video game academics" exist do they (I think "social critics" might be better term)? Harassment has been condemned by virtually everyone. Sexism being condemned in the gaming industry would be done by social critics, certain journalists and named developers. Condemnation of sexism/tropes/male gaze has been much more limited to specific instances by much smaller critics (i.e. Sarkheesian is a social critic that highlights these issues) . The Blizzard CEO, for example, condemned harassment which was reported as a condemnation of GamerGate. He then introduced his next game containing trope/male gaze characters and nobody batted an eye. Again harassment is to GamerGate what Terrorism is to Islam. The same people that stood up and applauded the Blizzard CEO for condemning harassment then bought/reviewed his trope/male gaze video game. What gamers, developers and publishers didn't want to hear (and didn't as only only one or two journalists picked it up) was that they were misogynists for buying and/or playing the game. The article needs to be careful about attributing identities with actions. More careful than the press. It's very likely that harassers/misogynists support gamergate. (ISIS terrorist are very likel islamic). Not nearly as incendiary as saying supporters of GamerGate are harassers/misogynists ("supporters of Islam are ISIS terrorists."). This is the pitfall of identity politics and flipping the equivalency is not okay (except for those that oppose both identities). --] (]) 04:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yes, video game academics exist. Hence, y'know, ]. The rest of your post is veering off into a different territory and I'd like to keep this thread on topic. You're right that Gamergate doesn't represent all gamers, and that's fair enough reason to tweak on the lede so that it doesn't suggest so. But Gamergate, the movement, '''is inextricably tied to misogynistic harassment''' and to pretend otherwise simply isn't in keeping with the clear and unambiguous consensus of reliable sources. ] (]) 04:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Then say DiGRA if you mean DiGRA and source it. I don't see any sources for "video game academics" existing outside that group and that statement is an appeal to authority argument without any RS's backing it up. --] (]) 17:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The sources are presented above and in the article. ] (]) 20:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:'''Support''' Very plain and neutral, seems like an accurate reflection of the article and an improvement on the current one. I'd suggest linking video game culture though. ]] 10:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:'''Support''' - I am satisfied with the tweaks made. In addition, I hope that the sources about academics are indeed in the article as North claims above. ]] ''']''' 00:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' - Some of those which I presented are currently in the article, and if it's unprotected I will be happy to add the others. ] (]) 01:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Perhaps those sources about academics could be worked into the draft? ]] ''']''' 03:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Article focus: Is this WP article to be about the Gamergate group or the Gamergate controversy? ===

In reading the long discussions here and in other locations on WP such as the ArbCom pages, I’ve noticed that the editors on this article seem to have two conflicting ideas as to what this article is about. Some seem to believe the article is about describing a series of events that occurred in the video game industry in the fall of 2014. Some, by contrast, seem to believe that the article is about describing “Gamergaters”, the people behind the actions. We need to make a decision on what the focus is going to be as this will have a large bearing on what kind of statements we can appropriately make in the article itself.

For example, many new editors here and on the ArbCom pages appear to be very invested in describing the group of people calling themselves “Gamergaters.” They state that the article cannot refer to these people as “misogynistic” because that is passing a “moral judgment” on those people. (I disagree with this statement, incidentally, as I don’t believe this is an issue of moral judgment but simply one of description, but nevertheless that is what some editors are saying.) However, if the article is about the acts and not the people behind the acts, then obviously the acts themselves are clearly misogynistic and need to be stated as such in line with the RSes we have. And obviously it is immoral to send rape and death threats to industry figures, predominantly female, in an attempt to terrorize them out of the industry. I don’t think anyone can argue that that is moral behavior.


==Sanctions enforcement==
If the consensus is that the article is about the controversy and not the group, then these descriptions are required because there is no disagreement in the RSes about the awfulness of these actions. But if the article is to be about the group, it would need to be restructured, perhaps along the lines of the ] article, with a lede that we could, in fact, crib directly from that article and suitably adjust: {{tq | Gamergate (used as a mass noun) is a loosely associated international network of entities organized primarily around Internet gathering areas such as ] and various anonymous ]. It has been characterized by anonymous individuals claiming membership as being devoted to the cause of promoting ethics in game journalism. The group became known for a series of well-publicized harassment attacks on figures in the video game industry, predominantly women, pursued via Twitter, email, and other anonymous digital attack vectors.}} Then have a section to list the most notable attacks; the group's (short) history, genesis, and christening, to the extent that it is known; a section for analysis of the validity of the group's claims; and a section for the reaction of the world in general to the group.
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message|}}<!-- ] 12:00, 26 April 2035 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1840363256}}<!-- END PIN -->
All articles related to the ].


Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: ].
Also, the talk page here has gotten derailed onto a strange discussion about the "fringe" of Gamergate. This discussion is only relevant if the article is actually to be about the group itself and not the controversy, and in that case, I don't see how this concept of “fringe Gamergate” has any validity given that Gamergate, by conscious design, has no center. It has no official leaders, no membership roll, no standards, no official agenda. To be a member of Gamergate, literally all you have to do is utilize a certain Twitter hashtag for a certain purpose. You can’t talk about the “fringe” of Gamergate any more than you can talk about the “fringe” of Anonymous.
So let’s try to get a consensus here: Is this article just about what was done under the Gamergate hashtag and rubric, in which case editors need to stop complaining about entirely apt and sourced terms like misogynistic, or is this article about the loose anonymous group calling itself Gamergate, in which case it needs a thorough restructuring? I am not certain that the group itself is notable enough to get a page dedicated to describing it – certainly they have done nothing nearly as impactful as the actions of Anonymous. But if this page is about the controversy, the actions themselves, then editors should stop asserting that statements made about the actions equate to statements made about the group. ] (]) 09:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:I've been using the term "fringe" to discuss the fact that Gamergate's claims clearly fall under ] and in terms of making sure our article is clear that Gamergate is a fringe element within gaming culture, and doesn't represent even a significant minority of gamers. ] (]) 09:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::Right, I was mostly referring to DHeyward's, Masem's, and starship.paint's posts about the Gamergate "fringe", as in "the core of Gamergate isn't doing that bad stuff, it's the fringe." I'm not contesting that Gamergate is a fringe viewpoint, which it clearly is. Only that you can't have a fringe unless you define the center, and Gamergate deliberately has no defined center. ] (]) 10:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I agree that that to view the harassment as coming from a "fringe" within Gamergate is not supportable based on the reliable sources. It certainly isn't coming from ''everyone'' who supports Gamergate, but it's not a tiny minority either. ] (]) 10:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::Actually we do have sourcing in place already that says it's a vocal minority believed responsible for the harassment, or possibly even not from the same group (other users that just want to stir the pot). They don't remove the guilt by association for GG in general due to harassment. --] (]) 15:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Which sources are those? ] (]) 15:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::, . --] (]) 15:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::I see nothing in the NPR article to support the "vocal minority" argument. The Auerbach opinion peice is just dumb. ] (]) 16:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::::I don't think we're ever going to get perfect agreement on this issue, as it is largely subjective. The last two bits on this story discuss this angle, basically... "Some Gamergaters say the harassers are just a vocal minority, but to the outside world there's no distinction between the ethics GG'er and the harasser GG'er."] (]) 15:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::That's rather weak sauce: "We may not be actually performing the harassment we've been encouraging, says maybe-representative of inherently untrustworthy group" - I would lean towards not including it. ] (]) 15:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::No one is saying they are "encouraging" harassing, but the atmosphere they've created internally is one where harassment as an option to express discontent is ''not'' strongly condemned/discouraged, which is what the press sees. There are some trying to uncover the harassers but they haven't gotten a lot of press coverage beyond one or two pieces. --] (]) 15:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::How can anyone at all know that the harassers of Gamergate are a "minority" when there's no membership count? In order to factually establish minority status someone would have to count all Gamergaters, then count the harassers, then determine what percentage that was. None of these numbers exists nor can possibly exist as long as Gamergate has no structure or organization. (No, membership on the subreddit doesn't count as real data.) Anyone saying that the harassers are a vocal minority is speaking from opinion and not from fact, so I don't see how WP can include any factual statement indicating how much of the nebulous cloud that is "Gamergate" engages in harassment. And that's even if you could agree on a definition of what behavior exactly crosses the line from simple obnoxiousness into harassment, which...good luck. All anyone can factually state is that the majority of the threats and harassment received by the victims in this mess was done under the banner of "Gamergate", mostly by direct use of the hashtag on Twitter, some via other communications (email, phone) where membership in Gamergate was claimed by the harassers. ] (]) 17:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Sources have used the subscriber count at reddit KIA's board to get a number, which a while ago (when reported) was at 10,000; and yes, the sources note this is the best estimate they got. There was also another data source that I'd have to find (and I don't think it was an high quality RS but an RS nevertheless) that put the number of very active proGGers at around 450 based on twitter messages (eg unique accounts using the #gg hashtag). But we have no reliable sources that affirms any self-identified member of the GG movement (the "ethics") stuff engaged in harassment. It is very likely there are some, no doubt, but that's OR to say that. And we do have sources that say some members of the GG movement are trying to end/discover those that engaged in harassment, so we can't say every GG movement member is part of the harassment. The movement, as an entity (not a collection of people) is still called out as a environment that fosters the use of harassment to silence people they disagree with, but you can't pin that on any specific named person, nor to every person within it. --] (]) 18:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::When the harassment is largely conducted via anonymous social media, of course people who harass using it aren't going to identify themselves via their real names. That doesn't change the responsibility at all. It doesn't. Moreover, there is no separate "ethics stuff" and you cannot intimate that the "real" goal of Gamergate is "ethics in gaming journalism" because... yeah, that's not what the reliable sources say. At all. ] (]) 18:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::As my lengthy statement that started off this section shows, I don't think we can say anything at all about Gamergate as a group, or at least not anything more than we say about Anonymous: That they exist, that they have no structure or organization, that they operate via the Internet, and that the only way to define this group is by cataloging the things done under their name. Since this article is, as far as I can tell, intended to be about the events called the "Gamergate controversy" and not about the Gamergate group, we really shouldn't be saying much of anything at all about the group's composition if it's not backed up by solid reporting in the RSes. Membership in a subreddit is not useful data; many people have multiple Reddit accounts, and many people sub to subreddits just to be able to track the subreddit and not because they necessarily support the group or engage in its activities. None of the numbers regarding Gamergate are verifiable ] at all. I think we will make a lot more progress in getting this article into readable shape if we divorce the material that is actually verifiable through RSes from material that is all pure supposition and guesswork (How big the "Gamergate group" is, what percentage of it harasses, whether or not the people involved are misogynistic/immoral/noble warriors for truth, justice and ethics, et cetera and so on and so forth ad nauseum.) Our article should catalog the events of the controversy as reported in the RSes and not engage in identity politics or try to define the people involved in the Gamergate group for either good or ill. ] (]) 18:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::We can use the metrics that RS have identified to estimate their numbers, as long as we source/name the publication that does that, so that we're clear it's a rough estimation and absolutely not an official number. It gives a very ballpark figure what the size of the group is to the reader. --] (]) 19:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::Okay, which metrics are you referring to specifically? The numbers you gave up above aren't sourced. ] (]) 20:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::It is ignorant to pretend that the GG side has not self-stated ethics claims just because the press keep going back to the "but ethics" issues. It doesn't matter if the claims are impossible to enact, are oxymorons like "objective reviews" or the like; ''some'' documentation of those self-stated claims have been made, and thus we should discuss them (We do, but we could do better organization to be more impartial within the context of a FRINGE viewpoint). We can also easily document the reason these claims are deemed silly by the press, as well as the fact that a large number of the press think any attempt to justify GG as an ethics front is really trying to mask the environment of harassment (which we have already too). The way I see to keep everything we have and without introducing any new material is simply to organize all the bits and pieces about "GG as an ethics movement" in to short 2-3 paragraph section, and then the rest of the article would primarily about the harassment events, and the critiicism of the "but ethics!"/ethics as a front for harassment that we have already. That would isolate the movement itself in a small section, relative to the weight of the rest of the article, and make it clear how the lines are drawn out in the press. --] (]) 19:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::A section titled "Gamergate as an ethics movement" states, as fact, that they ''are'' an ethics movement, which is not supported by the reliably-sourced evidence. Rather, the idea that they're interested in ethics is a topic of significant debate and is generally rejected outside the movement, and we appropriately title the section accordingly. ''At best'' we have sources that say "well, there are some people in Gamergate who say they are interested in ethics," which doesn't permit us in the least to say that "Gamergate ''is'' an ethics movement." ] (]) 19:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::There is ''no'' evidence to say they are ''not'' an ethics movement, but that's also to say that there is also no evidence, beyond the group's claim, that they are an ethics movement as well. It is a clear predominate opinion that GG is not an ethics movement, and that's got to be presented as such. But it's not appropriate to ignore the sourcable-to-3rd-parties self-stated claims that the movement had made about itself; again. I wouldn't necessary call the section "GG as an ethics movement", I would simply call it the "GG movement" (as there is also a "consumer revolt" angle too that is self-stated that we can source), and make sure that within the discussion to note that much of the press have difficulty in accepting that a movement without a leader by mostly anonymous people could really be a movement. --] (]) 19:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::We have been over this, and yes there are many sources which deny the attribution of "ethics movement" to gamergate. -- ] 19:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I agree, in that if there were a heading labeled "GG as an ethics movement", all we would have under it would be words to the effect of "GG says they are an ethics movement, but no one else in the world agrees with their definition of ethics; and also, even by their fringe definition of the word, they haven't actually accomplished anything of note," and a very long list of citations about how the "ethics!" talk is anything but credible. What else would go in there? Can any editor provide a single instance of any accomplishment by individuals acting on behalf of the Gamergate movement that advanced the cause of ethics, as the term is defined by the greater world? I'd really like to see it. ] (]) 19:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Yes - the fact many gaming sites have started to include disclosure statements, one of the original ethics claims of GG. --] (]) 19:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Sources please? Which sites, what changes were made, how substantial, and does the site itself credit Gamergate for the change in a positive way? As I understand it, what actually happened was that these sites had existing policies already in place but merely acted to make those policies more visible. Does that count as a notable achievement for ethics? ] (]) 20:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Even if we grant that as an accomplishment, one barely-noted event three months ago cannot be said to define a movement which later went on to international media infamy for its penchant for mob harassment and death threats. We already discuss that event in our article... and it is ''the'' one and only example of anything meaningful which anyone can cite. Meanwhile, there is a veritable flurry of reliable sources ''right now'' discussing how Gamergate's harassment campaigns so disgusted the general public that Twitter has been forced to upgrade its blocking and reporting functions. ] (]) 20:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Many sources make the claim that GG is not an ethics movement, that's fine. They are not sources in a position of any authority to state '''as a fact''' that GG is not about ethics, since all they are going on is a pattern of behavior, not any actual analysis of the membership or the like. It's a predominate opinion, one that is properly reflected in the article, but we cannot treat is as fact when it comes to article organization or verbage. --] (]) 19:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Masem, '''Gamergate doesn't have actual membership''' so you're asking for something that can't exist. Gamergate is intentionally leaderless, unorganized and anonymous. Such a "movement" cannot then logically complain about being analyzed as if they are leaderless, unorganized and anonymous — which means that their behavior is the only thing anyone can go by. Reliable sources have drawn a conclusion at this point, and you're in no position to rebut those sources by demanding impossible evidence. ] (]) 20:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::"Intentionally leadership" citation needed. I'm sure that's a claim made by the press, but here's the problem - everyone is trying to assess the '''motivations''' of Gamergate based on behavior and not actually speaking to any specific person or persons or groups. The closest we got was the Boston Globe editor that spoke to KIA to try to get some information and came out with little solid. If the motivations were well documented, that would be the facts we can use to make all these claims, but there is no established motivation, which makes the press's statements all their opinions and conclusions, but at the same time wears away at any credibility that GG may have. We still must be neutral and impartial. It readily apparent that when you step away to look at the GG situation from the 60,000 ft level, without emotion or the like, that the press is making its fair share of reasonably conclusions based on the little evidence as provided, but that's only their conclusions, it does not make them ''true''. We don't do that when the press calls out Westboro as a hate group or Scientology as a scam, we cannot do it here for GG with what is presently reported. --] (]) 20:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Citation and . Chan culture disdains leaders, and leadership inevitably means identifiability and accountability, both of which Gamergate has studiously avoided.
:::::::::::::::::We are neutral. We discuss the fact that Gamergate claims that it's about ethics. We also discuss the fact that literally everyone else thinks that's bullshit. That's "neutrality" in Misplaced Pages's sense. ]. ] (]) 20:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Masem, because of Gamergate's disdain for official organization, there is no one who is a position to give an official statement as to the group's motivations. This leaves outsiders to the group in the position of having to infer their motivation from their deeds, which the RSes have tried to do. This is entirely fair given that the group cannot expect to have the benefits of the lack of centralization (no one to be held accountable for the group's actions) without also having the downside, which is that there is literally no one who can make official statements about what the group is "really" about, who leads it, what behavior will and will not be tolerated by the membership, who is allowed to speak and act officially for the group, and so on. Again, the group has deliberately set themselves up this way, to make it necessary to infer their motivations rather than just ask them for an official statement, and therefore this is an entirely fair way to approach the question of their motivations as a group. It's the only method they've allowed. ] (]) 20:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::(to both) That's about the chan culture, and which yes, I agree GG is certainly connected to and the implication is there and Occum's Razor, but that does not say "GG movement has specifically avoided any leadership", in a manner we can speak in WP's voice. We certainly can use sources that say that GG's lack of leadership is likely from its chan roots, which have typically been against any form of leadership, citing those sources, but we can't say that GG has purposely chose to remain leaderless because we would need statements from GG members to affirm that. If no one speaks to the GG group about their motiviations or ideals, no one can make a valid claim as to what they actually are, and can only make assumptions and guesswork from their actions. Again, to stress, the opinions that GG is nothing about ethics due to harassment is predominate and clear and must be presented, but we cannot write that in WP's voice or work the article in that fashion treating this as a fact. There's a lot of logic pitfalls that the lack of information from GG is creating here, but that doesn't mean we fill those gaps by treating opinions as facts from other sources, and that's what is happening here when we make assumptions on this talk page like "GG is not a movement" or "GG is not about ethics". Instead we should be saying "GG claims to be a movement but they don't demonstrate it well".


<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) ] (UTC)</small>
::::::::::::::::::Also keep in mind: there are 9 major facets of ], weight and balance are only two. I'm well past the issue of weight and balance, but we're still far from impartial as well as still not using only the best sources that we can. --] (]) 20:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::: I think you are confused about what it means to “speak in WP’s voice.” WP’s “voice” is merely the synthesis – the distillation, if you will – of what the RSes on the topic are saying. In order to make a case that this article has an inappropriate voice, you need to show how it differs from the consensus of the RSes. I am not seeing this. Instead, I am seeing you say that even though the RSes say that there is nothing substantive at all in GG’s claims to be about ethics, WP’s “voice” should give that viewpoint a fair airing because anonymous people claiming to be in Gamergate are insisting that it is true. That is not the case. Anonymous people claiming to be members of a group that has no official organization, stance, agenda, position, or anything but a hashtag, a subreddit, and a bunch of threads on an imageboard do not get to influence WP’s “voice.” They simply don’t. ] (]) 20:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::We are supposed to distill sources, and when sources give opinions make sure those are cited as opinions and not spoken as fact in WP's voice. But there's also a matter of avoiding advocacy, both for and against GG, and the way this article is structures and choices of certain language facts, it toes that line towards being an anti-GG advocacy piece. See, for example, the above discussion to rework the lede para into something that is more impartial without conceding anything (if in fact putting more weight towards) the antiGG side of the GG situation, specifically by moving the misogyny aspect to the point where it applies most, the harassment and criticism of GG but not the core of the conflict from both sides.
::::::::::::::::::::As an example of where impartiality is not being give a fair shake is how diffuse we discuss anything credible about the proGG side before including the press piece that tear into it. We're going to have the press criticism, no question about that, but by diluting all the aspects of GG with criticism, we are not neutrally reporting on GG and instead speaking more from the anti-GG piece; it is the equivalent of acting like the press must get the last work in, injecting that opinion into every point of the article. Simply by reordering some parts of the article - adding no new sources or information outside of phrasing and grammar for readability and flow, we can present the GG side in small coherent set of paragraphs (2-4 at most), and then let the press sourcing do the rest of the work for us to provide the strong and overwhelming amount of criticism against GG (stating that as the press's opinion, obviously). I have contended for some time now that this article is 90% fine, and just needs a bit of wordsmithing and reorg, and ''not'' the addition of new sources, to make it more impartial without changing the balance/weight aspect. --] (]) 21:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


== They/them pronoun confusion ==
::::::::::::::::::::: '''“acting like the press must get the last work (sic) in”''': By the press, you mean the RSes? If the “last word” doesn’t go to the RSes, who do you think it most appropriately goes to? Are you seriously arguing that anonymous individuals claiming to be members of Gamergate, but who cannot speak with any authority about the movement because the movement has no authority (again by its own design and intent), should get the “last word in” instead? '''Yes, the last word belongs to the RSes.''' That’s one of the core principles of this encyclopedia. That is who must get the last word, Masem. '''There is no one who can officially speak for Gamergate.''' It’s not possible. There is no official Gamergate. Just volunteers who can in no way speak for any other member of the group and who cannot be considered any kind of a source at all for Misplaced Pages’s purposes, let alone a reliable one. We can’t put forth an article where we put the New York Times on one side, and “balance” the other side with the opinions of “some random guy who tweets under a hashtag”. That’s ludicrous. ] (]) 23:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


As someone who is not familiar with gamergate, there are some parts of the article which are confusing because of how Quinn's they/them pronouns are used.
:::::::::::::Actually yeah, there is lots of evidence that they're not an ethics movement, and I'm not sure why you think we should ignore it. Their lack of meaningful ethics claims, their incredibly-unethical tactics, their origin in misogynistic, slut-shaming attacks on Zoe Quinn, etc., all of this and more has led reliable sources to conclude that they are not seriously concerned with actual ethical issues. The lack of anything meaningful emerging from Gamergate in a month or so is a telling point. Surely there are ethical issues they can come up with... or no, wait, they're too . Such ethics as one has never seen before.
The lead currently contains the following sentence:
:::::::::::::Gamergate's most notable action of late has been its harassment . As we get further away from the major initial events, it's clear that the most significant impact the movement has had is bringing worldwide attention to the issue of anonymous Internet harassment. ] (]) 19:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::All that is their conclusion as ''press members'', not as authoritative experts in the article (which I would expect to be social science academics and the like). We as WP cannot use opinions of the press to state something as a fact in WP's, nor should be led by the press to write in a non-neutral fashion. Yes, there's not much that GG has for it that we can really build on and their case for anything positive in the article is weak to nil at best -- but we have to remain neutral and cannot sway our writing (not balance) because of the lack of information or the predominate opinion of the press. We can write out their opinions as the major aspect of this article, but we cannot pretend that those opinions are fact, because what really is GG actually is factually unknown. --] (]) 20:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::The nature of the group membership is unknown by the group's own deliberate choice, but the facts of what has been done (harassment, death threats) and not done (ethics) under the Gamergate banner are quite public. Saying that the visible actions taken under this rubric of "Gamergate" have been all about harassment and not about ethics is a statement of fact. We don't have to circumlocute around this point to spare the feelings of a group of people who have chosen to remain anonymous, leaderless, and without organization or official purpose of any kind. ] (]) 20:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
{{outdent}} Masem, we have a draft page now. Rather than arguing around hypothetical terms, why don't you develop a draft section of what you think should be included/rewritten and present it for discussion, just as I developed a draft proposal for a new lede which has gained at least the beginnings of a consensus? We're going around in circles here and futilely spilling thousands of talk-page words in large part because we don't actually have a concrete proposal to pick over, and merely claiming that the article is "not impartial" doesn't outline how you propose to improve the article. ] (]) 21:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


Gamergate began with an August 2014 blog entry called "The Zoe Post" by Quinn's ex-boyfriend, which falsely insinuated that Quinn had received a favorable review because of <u>their</u> sexual relationship with a games journalist.
===Student newspaper issue===
{{hat|If I may be ] for a moment; the college itself yanked the piece, so let's let the meta discussion of it's merits...or lack thereof...lie. ] (]) 13:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)}}
:: This says otherwise {{redacted}}. If Gamergate's concern were a fringe matter, why would have this source bothered to write an opinion article about it? ] (]) 10:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Your "source" is a student newspaper article written by a college freshman which contains multiple false statements about living people and does not speak well for Amherst College's journalism program. I'm tempted to send an e-mail to the editor-in-chief and faculty adviser, actually.
:::More to the point, "fringe" theories get written about all the time. What distinguishes a fringe theory is the lack of credence given to it by mainstream reliable sources. It is demonstrable that mainstream reliable sources dismiss Gamergate's core claims of "ethics in gaming journalism" as a false, even tendentious, argument to provide cover for a vicious campaign against people, particularly women, who are discussing social and cultural issues in video gaming and working to shift the culture's zeitgeist. In short, a culture war. ] (]) 10:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::: Can we then atleast then make distinctions like DHeyward argued above ? The source I gave shows that there two sides to the gamergate issuse (i.e that "Fringe theory"). Maybe a disclaimer like "this article deals with the harassment women in video games culture have received". There is no denying that the harassment happened but the problem is that the article gives the impression that the "fringe" movement is responsible for this harassment. I actually think that the "The 2014 Harassment of Women in Videogaming" (this would stop the NPOV arguing) would be a way better title ] (]) 10:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::: That link isn't a reliable source for the reasons NBSBaranof stated. And the WP article can't be separated from the Gamergate hashtag because that's what the harassers were, and still are, operating and organizing under. Plus, the harassment of women in video gaming is something that's gone on for far longer than just these few months; what's notable about the Gamergate controversy is not that women were harassed in video games, but the degree of viciousness and level of organization in the effort which had not been previously seen in this industry. ] (]) 11:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::: Edited to add: That link actually contains flat-out libelous and damaging statements about Zoe Quinn so I wrote to the paper's editor to let him know they'd better get that down post-haste if they don't want to get sued. Avono, I can't believe you'd try to use that illegal garbage as a source. I think this needs to go to ArbCom as well. ] (]) 11:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::: I do not think this was published without oversight. Did I ever say that I supported what he said? No. What I wanted to show with this that they there is a group that is not involved with the Harassment but are Critical towards these Figures. Or are you going to state that the author who wrote this harasses women? ] (]) 11:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::: You are fully aware of the BLP issues associated with this article and yet you linked to a clearly libelous "source" that puts forth proven falsehoods about the individuals at the center of this vicious harassment. You suggested this libelous material as a useful source for this article. I have requested sanctions against you for this action and may enter it into Arbcom as well as a fine example of the problems certain editors are deliberately causing with this article. ] (]) 11:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Let's slow down and take a deep breath. I agree that it should be redacted, and have done so. I don't think a topic ban is needed here necessarily, but yeah, Avono, that's exactly the sort of poorly-researched and not-at-all-fact-checked garbage sourcing that we simply can't countenance on Misplaced Pages. The piece is frankly worse than I thought — there's some terrifyingly-libelous statements that I missed on the first read. Student newspapers are not acceptable sources for living persons issues, and for precisely this reason — their fact-checking and editorial oversight can be incredibly hit-or-miss. ] (]) 11:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::The material in that opinion piece is thoroughly actionable in the legal sense and the college is exposed as long as the page is up. I've contacted Amherst (which is a good school, generally) and reported this matter to their legal staff so they can deal with it as well, as soon as the East Coast of the US wakes up. The student who wrote it is about to get a very harsh lesson in what ethics in journalism is actually about, I'm afraid. ] (]) 12:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::ReynTime, this is about the article and not about the person who wrote it. The "source" has already been retracted above and, as far as I know, we are focusing on improving an article and not about teaching a lesson to potential sources. If the piece cannot be used, then that is as far as we should go instead of taking the matter into our own hands. --] (]) 09:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Suggesting we give up our rights as private citizens (and our duties as decent human beings) when we edit WP is ....a really fascinating argument I've never seen before. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion? ] (]) 10:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
{{hab}}


The sentence gives the impression that it's about a sexual relationship between Quinn, Quinn's ex-boyfried, and a games journalist. I know it's because Quinn's pronouns are they/them but their pronouns haven't been mentioned yet in the text.
== Twitter report tools ==


Then their pronouns are mentioned in a footnote, but it's still pretty confusing:
I just ] the sentence {{blue|Supporters of Gamergate that have been trying to police users that engage in harassment have also found Twitter's tools for reporting abuse to be insufficient.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29821050 | title = Zoe Quinn: GamerGate must be condemned | first = Dave | last = Lee | date = October 30, 2014 | accessdate = October 30, 2014 | publisher = ] }}</ref>}} from the draft article as I don't think it's supported by the text of the article. If someone has a source for that let me know, it may be a case where someone cited the wrong source, or I'm just missing something. If we can't find any source for it I'll probably put a protected edit request in to remove it from the main article.


Called "The Zoe Post", it was a lengthy, detailed account of <u>their</u> relationship and breakup that included copies of personal chat logs, emails, and text messages. The blog falsely implied that Quinn received a favorable review of Depression Quest in exchange for <u>their</u> sexual relationship with Nathan Grayson, a reporter for the gaming websites Kotaku and Rock Paper Shotgun.
The whole paragraph about twitter could probably be re-written shortly as Twitter just announced new report tools and I would expect we'll see quite a few articles about it referencing Gamergate. — ] (]) 13:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:Gamergate has already been referenced rather slyly by Twitter itself in the blog announcing this tool: The harassing user being reported in the demo video is represented by a picture of an alligator. This is unlikely to be accidental. ] (]) 14:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::Doesn't seem unlikely at all, and not what is being asked for. ]] 14:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::It's supportive of the interpretation that the true long-term notability of Gamergate will have nothing to do with "ethics in game journalism" but rather with the evolutionary response of social media to the way that the Gamergate movement is utilizing and abusing those tools. The Twitter blog is evidence that this evolution is being driven primarily by Gamergate, as acknowledged by Twitter themselves, which is why I brought it up and linked it. If a few more RSes chime in on this we might want to expand this section of the article and trim some other parts that are much less notable to make room. (I know ] but I think this article really is too long to be effective.) ] (]) 15:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:: and mention the chance in light of GG, but note that the service has come under a lot of fire in the page due to lack of tools. We can't say for certain the tools were made because of GG, but in the light of GG, the introduction of the tools has been seen extremely timely. --] (]) 15:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:Can you find who added it to ask them? ]] 14:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::Good idea. Wikiblame to the rescue. Looks like {{ping|Masem}} it. — ] (]) 15:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::What? I was simply suggesting asking them incase they knew the source intended if it was miss-sourced. ]] 15:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::Yes. ] is how I found it was Masem who added it. He's active here so I thought pinging him would be enough. — ] (]) 15:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Oh, I've never heard of that tool, I thought you were accusing me of something. ]] 15:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::(ec)I think I added that and that's from the original article, and there was a source for that at the time, but looks like it has been lost/replaced/whatever since. , but I could have sworn one of Auerbach's pieces also had it too. --] (]) 15:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Archive of the BW article looks to be unchanged. May have been just a mistaken attribution of Wu as a GG supporter? I'll poke around on Google news to see if any of the Auerbach pieces (or maybe Kain?) mention it. — ] (]) 15:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::I just know when I added it I had a source included for it, I just don't know what happened to it since. --] (]) 15:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::It might have been this WaPo blog article that since been removed.<ref name=WaPoGGGoals>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/24/how-some-gamergate-supporters-say-the-controversy-could-stop-in-one-week/|title=How some Gamergate supporters say the controversy could stop "in one week"|last=Tsukayama|first=Hayley|work=]|date=October 24, 2014|accessdate=October 25, 2014}}</ref> Current version does talk about GG supporters reporting harassment, but not the twitter tools for doing so. May have been updated, I can't check in the wayback machine because of their robots.txt. I think we could cite this article and re-work the sentence a bit and be fine. If anyone can find a better source ping me. — ] (]) 16:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
{{reflist talk}}


I assume the first "their" is about the relationship between Quinn and Quinn's ex-boyfriend, and that the second "their" is about a relationship between Quinn and Grayson, but the second could still be interpreted as "Quinn's and Quinn's ex-boyfriends" sexual relationship.
== New Guardian article ==


I think these sentences should be written more clearly (by someone who knows what the sentences are supposed to mean). ] (]) 08:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
. More useful probably on Quinn's page, but a couple things I see from this is 1) it notes that there was already resentment by some GG people against selected devs and journalists prior to Gjoni's post, and thus the controversy fed partially on that, and 2) it talks that the use of intimidation tactics has caused many gaming sites to go silent on GG matters, which in turn Quinn feels is harmful since it has made her feel like a solitary entity fighting against GG. There's some other points but it does have a good accurate timeline of the core events too. --] (]) 15:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:I agree. I've tried some very minor rewording - replaced the first "their" with "Quinn's" to read "which falsely insinuated that Quinn had received a favorable review because of Quinn's sexual relationship with a games journalist", and removed the "their" from the second to give "The blog falsely implied that Quinn received a favorable review of Depression Quest in exchange for a sexual relationship with Nathan Grayson". Hopefully that reads better. - ] (]) 09:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


== Wired article concerning Gamergate and Kamala Harris ==
I would like to make a '''protected edit request''' to add that to a further reading section along with the History of Gamergate piece I suggested above.


A discussion in ''Wired'' of the playbook that arose during the Gamergate campaign and how it has been used in other contexts '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 00:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
* Keith Stuart, ''The Guardian,'' Dec. 3, 2014.


== Transphobia and attempted outting of Brianna Wu ==
Thanks, ] (]) 16:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


Should it be added that several proponents of Gamergate attempted to out then stealth trans woman ] as part of the harassment campaign? ] (]) 07:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:I think it's fair to include this on the main page while it is incorporated into the draft, as it is the currently best back-looking summary of GG that I've seen. --] (]) 16:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::Could add in andto source some facts/add new ones, I don't think the article needs any more opinion though. ]] 16:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::I would definitely use it to get updated opinions directly from Quinn (replacing her older ones), which have more time to reflect on events. EG the aspect of the silence of the VG sites towards GG as to help her defend herself is a relatively new thing. --] (]) 17:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


== Requested move 5 November 2024 ==
== Oxford University's Anders Sandberg examines Gamergate ==
Anders Sandberg, a research fellow at Oxford University, has , declaring that "rarely have a debate flared up so quickly, involved so many, and generated so much vituperation. If this is the future of broad debates our civilization is doomed." Useful analysis here in terms of how Gamergate's "Chan culture" mob mentality destroyed its credibility before it ever even had a chance to gain it, because that "Chan culture" has radically different cultural norms than mainstream society — which explains why Gamergate supporters are surprised that nobody else supports them and why basically everyone outside Gamergate is horrified at what they're doing. According to Sandberg, it's the result of "Chan culture" meeting the real world. ] (]) 18:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:While an interesting read, I'm not sure how relevant it is, to me it seems better placed on an article about imageboards or internet culture. ]] 21:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::An analysis by an ethics scholar at a very highly regarded educational institution is very relevant to this, as he speaks about how the controversy took the shape and style that it did. This is an excellent analysis and should definitely be included. ] (]) 23:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
== Daily Caller ==
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''


The result of the move request was: '''Not moved'''. There is a consensus here that the harassment campaign is not a primary topic &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 20:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Calls into question a lot of others' characterisations of Gamergate's supposed victims, and the characterisation of Gamergate itself. Points out that Sarkeesian, Quinn, and Wu have been targeted not because they're women, but because they're dishonest.
----


] → {{no redirect|Gamergate}} – In ] (12 November 2014), there was no consensus to move to Gamergate due to recentism and whether it is the primary topic. In ], there was consensus to move the ant species to use its qualifier. It is now clear that there is no recentism issue, and the hatnote indicates this is the primary topic "GamerGate redirects here. For other uses, see Gamergate (disambiguation)." ] (]) 22:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
{{quotation|#Gamergate’s choice of targets reveals that it is not attacking women, but rather attacking the most opportunistic, ideologically motivated, willfully dishonest actors currently commenting on, or making video games. Intellectual honesty is the movement’s cri de coeur, and it is not going to stop until it purges what Taylor Swift calls “the liars and the dirty, dirty cheats of the world” from possibly the last remaining art form where fraud masked by pretentiousness is insufficient to guarantee a livelihood.}}


*A nitpick on the "primary topic" bit: ]—that is, ] with 2 capital Gs—redirects here, as nobody writes "GamerGate" when discussing the ant. It doesn't mean that this article is the primary topic. ] is a disambiguation page. Also, there have been 6 move discussions since that 2014 discussion, so I wouldn't put too much stock into just "recentism". They're all under the "Other talk page banners" banner at the top of the page. ] (]) 23:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 23:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I really don’t think anyone outside of biologists even knows “gamergate” is a type of ant. This isn’t like the infamous ] vs. ] debacle— one’s an obscure technical term and the other is an extremely infamous harassment campaign. ] (]) 00:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
: You need a link here to the actual article before it can even be considered. ] (]) 23:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
*:agreed! ] (]) 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:'']'' is a right-wing house organ, and at best anything from its pages can be viewed as a highly-partisan opinion. Furthermore, your statement presents the claim that those three people are "dishonest" as fact, which is not supported by anything presented here. I request that you either support your statement or redact it. ] (]) 23:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom.--] (]) 19:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as there is still data coming out about both topics and "obscure" is only of value as a term when used to demote the usage of something outside ones scope of knowledge. Gamergate as a caste of ant social structure is not going to go away at any point. The harassment campaign is over, and as the legacy section shows, each years coverage has moved more and more to basic level "compared to" analogies and a full lack of in-depth conversation. Recentism seems to clearly be applicable here.--]] ] 23:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Woodroar and Kevmin. This gets rehashed frequently, but there's still no policy-based reason to move the article from its current name. We should retain the disambiguation page at ] and keep this page as-is. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 13:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I suppose I'll add an official !vote here. The harassment campaign article currently gets more views than the ant article. And given the campaign's influence on the alt-right and later harassment and disinformation campaigns, I don't see that interest disappearing tomorrow or next year—but I also can't see it staying relevant forever. Every retrospective I've read puts it firmly in the past, not an ongoing event. The ant was named first and gamergate ants will almost certainly outlast the relevance of the harassment campaign, Misplaced Pages itself, and probably humans. I don't think it's a burden for searchers to land at a disambiguation page where they can see options for the harassment campaign and ant, or for the ''Adventure Time'' character or note about ]. I mean, to be fair, the camelcase ] redirect should probably go to the disambiguation page as well, just to help dispel that confusion. ] (]) 17:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
*:This won't stay relevant forever, but as long as culture war isn't over, this would be the primary topic in most people's head, and a contentious topic at that. I am hesitant to do a ] here, but I am quite sure culture war will continue for at least 20 years per ], it will be very useful to keep this as primary topic during that time. ] (]) 18:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' nobody is looking for a niche ant when they're searching for gamergate. ]] 22:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tq|nobody is looking for a niche ant when they're searching for gamergate}}{{cn}} This seems to sit squarely in statements without data territory. You're saying nobody at all searches for the ant caste by its ''official name''??--]] ] 23:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
*::Yeah, Not sure what sort of demographic group is searching for ant castes named Gamergate... unless they knew it was an ant and put (ant) at the end. ]] 05:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::The problem here is that "knowing to put (ant) at the end" is learned behavior for searching and editing on wikipedia, not innate search behavior taught in school or higher education. You are creating a ] that the ant is NOT a search topic ever and using that to endorse your position.--]] ] 19:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Gamergate was a decade ago already, periodically re-upped or mentioned in passing as a historic footnote to the alt-right. The ant is eternal. The "for other uses" at the top likely needs refining is all I would say. And, unrelated to this specifically, the article long ago needed a rewrite. ] (]) 02:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' “the ant will always be relevant” is technically true, but dismissing Gamergate the harassment campaign as just something that will fade away in ''x'' years is ]. If we took this ''ad absurdum'', you could say the primary topic of ''Mario'' being ] is recentism, because ] has been around much longer, but that is obviously silly because there’s only one “Mario” most people are thinking of when they type it in. Similarly, who is seriously searching for information on a type of ant when they look up “gamergate”? None of the first-page hits on DuckDuckGo are for the ant besides its Misplaced Pages page. ] (]) 14:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
*:It already has faded away and is referenced in the past tense. It was a thing that happened briefly a decade ago. The people searching Gamergate for ants (or writing thesis, or producing research content, or studying entomology) are the same ones doing it before 2016, and will continue to do so forever because it is, like, science. This does not mean Gamergate ceases to be mentioned, or doesn't generate hits or search results - and why prior consensus agreed on the disambiguation. This is also why the sentence {{tq|In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus may be useful in determining which topic, if any, is the primary topic}} exists. Mario meanwhile is covered later by the statement: {{tq|Non-encyclopedic uses of a term are irrelevant for primary topic purposes; for example, ] is about a Korean pop band, despite the existence of the common English word "twice", as the latter is not a topic suitable for an encyclopedic article}} of WP:PRIMARY. ] (]) 21:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
*::“Happened in the past” is not a measure of relevance any more than happening in the present is. Is ] irrelevant because it only lasted a few days? Is Randy In Boise’s Junkyard Band relevant because they’re currently touring garages in the vicinity of ]? ] (]) 12:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::It very specifically is a measure of long term relevance as referenced in the example of Apple Inc vs Apple. The significance of coverage of the event confers notability for the creation of an article. After the event, the significance is maintained through repeated coverage. Woodstock (as the given example) has persistent, repeated, significant and notable coverage and new significant material produced about it annually (along with insignificant and non-notable coverage where it is merely referenced). Gamergate as a harassment campaign isn't. Gamergate occasionally comes up in single instances of research, commonly referenced as a precursor to some element of the Alt Right - but the topic itself isn't discussed, rather it is used as a bellwether type event. There are typically articles written from time to time with titles such as "What we didn't learn from Gamergate" etc but there is little meaningful content (either about the victims, the actions, and certainly not the perpetrators beyond the speculative attribution of the thing to a group of people who may or may not be now a part of another thing). In contrast (per example previous) Apple Inc is likely the most searched topic, the most routinely covered and so on - but an Apple is an ], Valve is a ], just as a Gamergate should be a Gamergate. ] (]) 01:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::Except nobody knows what a gamergate ''is'' besides an entomologist. It isn’t even considered a valid word by my spellcheck, i.e, it’s an obscure technical term almost nobody uses. ] (]) 00:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Arguments from incredulity do not really give any traction to your point though (you not looking for the Caste =/= NO ONE searches for the caste). Policy is where changes come from, and as it stands now, there is a continually decreasing amount of novel coverage for the harassment campaign, while the ant caste isn't going to go anywhere an has the lasting persistence of science topics.--]] ] 18:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Bkonrad’s argument directly below is concrete evidence that almost nobody is looking for the ant. The opposes are many, but they’re all based on four main arguments: “]” “]” “]” and “]”; these are all vague and subjective in their importance. ] (]) 07:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Bkonrad’s argument missed all the points the {{yo|KoA}} provided regarding the nuance of flash in the pan events vrs established topics with lasting use in a field. A situation you also are ignoring,--]] ] 19:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::Yes, there is a small population of individuals in a narrow field of study who might use the term with some frequency (some of whom are apparently thin-skinned enough to get bent out of shape that more people are interested in other things). This niche technical term in is dwarfed by the overwhelming disparity in what readers of this encyclopedia are looking for. Any comparison with Apple (fruit) vs Apple (company) is without merit. Nearly every speaker of English knows what the Apple fruit is, even if the company generates more traffic. For gamergate, it is likely less than .01% of English speakers who know about (or might ever think to look up) the ant-related topic. ] ≠ ] 20:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This is a bit ridiculous. The and show pretty overwhelmingly what readers are looking for in this case and it is not ants. The ants can be added specifically to the hatnote in addition to the dab so readers looking for the ant are still only one click aways just as they would be with the current setup. ] ≠ ] 17:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom. ] (]) 00:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''', if we can make a compromise, why not rename the ant article to Gamergate (insect/or ant)? ] (]) 19:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment.''' Nothing that prior to this comment, the other affected page on the ants was never notified. That's an inappropriate ] in terms of notification when comments are being made about the ants while leaving out the audience that would be most knowledgeable about it when discussing ] and focusing instead on only this page's audience instead. I didn't notice this was going on until I stopped over at the disambig page's talk today. I'll put notifications up shortly. ] (]) 19:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Idk what that means ] (]) 21:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*::@]; Primary topic grabs typically require multi-page moves, but if they don't, it is still courtesy to notify the other pages listed on the disambiguation. ] (]) 07:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. While this topic certainly still gets mentioned, coverage has declined sharply; it seems silly to suggest that it would be more appropriate as the main article than it was a decade ago when it was in full-swing. --] (]) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose.''' per ]. It's one thing to have the current disambiguation setup, but to call the harassment topic the primary topic would be a huge pardigm shift from previous discussions that isn't reflected here. I'll get into the substance below, but this does feel like a bludgeon for editors at the ant page not wanting to have to deal with a controversial topic. Over the last 10 years, this page has had a lot of controversy over its title and ambiguity on what to call itself to the point moratoriums have been put in place on RMs partially to give the ant topic a break. For the harassment topic to suddenly be the primary, there would have to be something huge that changed that wasn't covered ad nauseum in all the past RMs. Here's the history I had from the last RM below:
*#https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?oldid=1041117019#Requested_move_20_August_2021
*#https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?oldid=1039653835#Requested_move_12_August_2021
*#]
*#]
*#] (moratorium put in place on requested moves)
*#]
*#]
*#]
*#]
*#]
*:This initial proposal leaves out a lot of what actually happened in the , but the core issue here is that comments in support aren't really addressing the core issues found in the last move. It wasn't primarily a matter of recentism, but instead rangling with two aspects of PTOPIC:
*#{{tq|A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.}}
*#{{tq|A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.}}
*:For the time being, the harassment campaign has higher views in terms of PT1, but all of our guidance related to views, search hits, etc. have strong cautions against carte blanche use of those stats, especially in terms of ] and our internet audience where internet topics like the harassment topic are going to be more popular. For PT2 though, that's where the ant has a pretty clear case. Previous closes were clear too {{tq|it is apparent that a clear majority of the community would prefer a primary topic in favour of long-term significance}}. Personally I think that puts the ant squarely as the primary topic even when weighing all of that with an even hand. With that said, the harassment campaign over 10 years never had primary topic status, though in the 2021 RM, it was just split down the middle to have a disambiguation page instead of having the ant as the primary topic. That at least did stop the RMs for a time, but I'm not seeing anything here that would suggest that something has majorly changed on that side since 2021.
*:The other issue I'm seeing is the naming of the harassment campaign regardless of the ants. All the RMs I mentioned above show the history of how much the topic title has morphed and been contentious. Calling it the harassment campaign parenthetical seemed to finally settle that down, but undoing that is going to increase the ambiguity again. At the end of the day, the last RM at least made it so no one is astonished. You type Gamergate into the search and you're either going to see the two options you want already Gamergate (ant) or Gamergate (harassment campaign). If you click the first result, you get the disambiguation page which guides you even more. Unless there's a major resurgence of Gamergate-related harassment in coming years that truly adds to the event, it's pretty hard for it to leap-frog two levels up to the definitive primary topic. ] (]) 21:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*::I thought I'd revive a bit I wrote at the last RM that actually focuses on the ant side of things.
*::A gamergate is a worker ant that is able to reproduce, which the article outlines as unique for most ant species. This currently impacts all individuals of species within at least five ] and 17 ] (as opposed to only a of subset of individuals within the species ] for the harassment event). For the ants (or really any biological trait this fixed in multiple species), there is not a ] this million-year+ old trait will just suddenly disappear and stop affecting all of these species. In fact, that CRYSTAL policy specifically calls out such arguments as a violation: {{tq|Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Misplaced Pages to venture such projections.}} When scientists name these traits, they are generally also stable in usage ] is a similar example of these terminology being common in biology.
*::Much of this long-term impact is something inherent to ]/biology topics and is why PTOPIC also mentions long-term education aspects being of higher value. On that note, ant gamergates are something that’s likely to come up in biology textbooks when discussing ant colonies since ] animals are often a common example in varying degrees for both kids and college students. It might be a footnote in more basic biology books, but if you get into common intro-level courses at say college, this kind of thing can easily come up in sections dealing with insect diversity.
*::While common usage metrics have consistently been an issue for this discussion, looking at scholarly metrics helps. Google Scholar is well known, but generally not that reliable for things like citation metrics, etc. because they include a lot of non-scholarly sources. is usually a more conservative (scientifically, not political) search engine in that regard. Just typing in gamergate gave 189 articles (49 more than in 2021). Of these, 94 mostly focus on the gamergate ant, and 95 involved the harassment topic. That's giving the harassment topic a handicap since that includes mere mentions of Gamergate in that context in the search parameters. That paints a very different picture than those haphazardly using Google searches. At the least academic attention (or use) isn't any higher for the harassment topic, so you'd be hard pressed to call that the primary topic based on search hits. ] is what really anchors discussion here. ] (]) 21:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per KoA and others, the fact that people are finding the article they are interested in via the disambiguation and also learning about other uses supports retention of status quo. ] (]) 02:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per ]. While the harassment campaign is more notable in tv news and right-wing twitter/X/parler, it is not necessarily so world-wide, and most importantly, in the scholarly literature. See also: . Misplaced Pages is a scholarship-driven institution, and harassment of video game journalists is not any more important than entomology in the world of scholarship. Keep the disambiguation page, and keep these two pages (ant) and (harassment campaign) disambiguated. —&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 18:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Pure pageviews and Google hits are not the sole criterion of primary topics. As per others, mentions of the ants and the harassers are pretty balanced in scholarship, if not having the ants come out on top. Can we put a permanent moratorium on move discussions now? The "harassment campaign" part of the title gives ] editors a good reason to keep attempting this move for the foreseeable future. ] (]) 12:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Leave how the title is and don't change it, or change it to "GamerGate". I'm only speaking for the title, btw. ] • (]&#124;]). 05:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

Latest revision as of 05:19, 26 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gamergate (harassment campaign) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find video game sources: "Gamergate" harassment campaign – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Do not feed the trollDo not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
The purpose of this talk page is to host ongoing discussion among interested editors regarding the Gamergate (harassment campaign) article itself. This page is not for discussing this talk page itself or any other meta-discussion; use the Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Meta subpage for that. The subpage's creation is an Arbitration Enforcement action. Info on changes to the reference list are here: Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Reference Info.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions

To view an answer, click the link to the right of the question.

Q1: Can I use a particular article as a source? A1: What sources can be used in Misplaced Pages is governed by our reliable sources guideline, which requires "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If you have a question about whether or not a particular source meets this policy, a good place to ask is the Reliable sources noticeboard. Q2: I found a YouTube video, a post on 4chan/Reddit/9GAG/8chan, or a blog that relates to Gamergate. Can I use it as a source in the article? A2: All sources used in the article must comply with Misplaced Pages's standards for reliable sources. Self-published sources cannot be used for biographical content on a living person. If such sources were used, then gossip, slander and libelous material may find its way into the article, which would a) tarnish the quality of Misplaced Pages's information and b) potentially open up Misplaced Pages to legal action. For further information, please read the guidelines for sources in biographies of living people. Q3: Why is Misplaced Pages preventing me from editing the article or talk page? Why is this article biased towards one party or the other? A3: Content on Misplaced Pages is required to maintain a neutral point of view as much as possible, and is based on information from reliable sources (Vox, The Wall Street Journal, etc.). The article and its talk page are under protection due to constant edit warring and addition of unsourced or unreliably sourced information prohibited by our policy on biographical content concerning living people (see WP:BLP). Q4: The "reliable sources" don't tell the full story. Why can't we use other sources? A4: Verifiability in reliable sources governs what we write. Misplaced Pages documents what the reliable sources say. If those sources are incorrect or inadequate, it is up to other reliable sources to correct this. Misplaced Pages's role is not to correct the mistakes of the world; it is to write an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable sources.
In addition, this article falls under concerns relating to content on living persons. Sources that go into unverified or unsupported claims about living persons cannot be included at all. Editors should review the talk page archives here before suggesting a new source from non-mainstream sources to make sure that it hasn't been discussed previously.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconVideo games Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
WikiProject iconFeminism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJournalism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternet culture High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconSociology: Social Movements Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the social movements task force.
          Other talk page banners
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Miscellany for deletionDraft:Gamergate controversy was nominated for deletion on 23 June 2017. The result of the discussion was redirect.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
Section sizes
Section size for Gamergate (harassment campaign) (30 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 7,532 7,532
History 12 24,309
Zoë Quinn and Depression Quest 8,673 8,673
Anita Sarkeesian and Tropes vs. Women in Video Games 4,118 4,118
Brianna Wu 2,212 2,212
Other targets of harassment 4,785 4,785
Coordination of harassment 4,509 4,509
Demographics 1,742 1,742
Organization 6,299 14,975
Harassment and Twitter 2,598 2,598
Efforts to affect public perceptions 3,442 3,442
Targeting advertisers 1,100 1,100
Sad Puppies 1,536 1,536
Purpose and goals 8,966 8,966
Social, cultural, and political impact 3,100 20,723
Gamer identity 6,370 6,370
Misogyny and sexism 6,365 6,365
Law enforcement 4,888 4,888
Gaming industry response 6,868 6,868
Representation in media 3,227 3,227
Reducing online harassment 2,438 2,438
Legacy 10,955 34,354
2015–2018 5,223 5,223
2019 4,618 4,618
2020–2021 4,176 4,176
2022–present 9,382 9,382
See also 180 180
Notes 24 24
References 111,543 111,543
External links 1,105 1,105
Total 237,986 237,986
Reference ideas for Gamergate (harassment campaign)The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Sanctions enforcement

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

All articles related to the Gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions.

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs) 21:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

They/them pronoun confusion

As someone who is not familiar with gamergate, there are some parts of the article which are confusing because of how Quinn's they/them pronouns are used. The lead currently contains the following sentence: 

Gamergate began with an August 2014 blog entry called "The Zoe Post" by Quinn's ex-boyfriend, which falsely insinuated that Quinn had received a favorable review because of their sexual relationship with a games journalist.

The sentence gives the impression that it's about a sexual relationship between Quinn, Quinn's ex-boyfried, and a games journalist. I know it's because Quinn's pronouns are they/them but their pronouns haven't been mentioned yet in the text.

Then their pronouns are mentioned in a footnote, but it's still pretty confusing: 

Called "The Zoe Post", it was a lengthy, detailed account of their relationship and breakup that included copies of personal chat logs, emails, and text messages. The blog falsely implied that Quinn received a favorable review of Depression Quest in exchange for their sexual relationship with Nathan Grayson, a reporter for the gaming websites Kotaku and Rock Paper Shotgun.

I assume the first "their" is about the relationship between Quinn and Quinn's ex-boyfriend, and that the second "their" is about a relationship between Quinn and Grayson, but the second could still be interpreted as "Quinn's and Quinn's ex-boyfriends" sexual relationship.

I think these sentences should be written more clearly (by someone who knows what the sentences are supposed to mean). Paditor (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I've tried some very minor rewording - replaced the first "their" with "Quinn's" to read "which falsely insinuated that Quinn had received a favorable review because of Quinn's sexual relationship with a games journalist", and removed the "their" from the second to give "The blog falsely implied that Quinn received a favorable review of Depression Quest in exchange for a sexual relationship with Nathan Grayson". Hopefully that reads better. - Bilby (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Wired article concerning Gamergate and Kamala Harris

A discussion in Wired of the playbook that arose during the Gamergate campaign and how it has been used in other contexts Acroterion (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Transphobia and attempted outting of Brianna Wu

Should it be added that several proponents of Gamergate attempted to out then stealth trans woman Brianna Wu as part of the harassment campaign? Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 5 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is a consensus here that the harassment campaign is not a primary topic  — Amakuru (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Gamergate (harassment campaign) → Gamergate – In /Archive 13#Requested moves (12 November 2014), there was no consensus to move to Gamergate due to recentism and whether it is the primary topic. In Talk:Gamergate (ant)/Archive 3#Requested move 20 August 2021, there was consensus to move the ant species to use its qualifier. It is now clear that there is no recentism issue, and the hatnote indicates this is the primary topic "GamerGate redirects here. For other uses, see Gamergate (disambiguation)." Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  • A nitpick on the "primary topic" bit: GamerGate—that is, camel case with 2 capital Gs—redirects here, as nobody writes "GamerGate" when discussing the ant. It doesn't mean that this article is the primary topic. Gamergate is a disambiguation page. Also, there have been 6 move discussions since that 2014 discussion, so I wouldn't put too much stock into just "recentism". They're all under the "Other talk page banners" banner at the top of the page. Woodroar (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support I really don’t think anyone outside of biologists even knows “gamergate” is a type of ant. This isn’t like the infamous Bill O’Riley vs. Bill O’Riley debacle— one’s an obscure technical term and the other is an extremely infamous harassment campaign. Dronebogus (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
    agreed! Laugoose (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose as there is still data coming out about both topics and "obscure" is only of value as a term when used to demote the usage of something outside ones scope of knowledge. Gamergate as a caste of ant social structure is not going to go away at any point. The harassment campaign is over, and as the legacy section shows, each years coverage has moved more and more to basic level "compared to" analogies and a full lack of in-depth conversation. Recentism seems to clearly be applicable here.--Kevmin § 23:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Woodroar and Kevmin. This gets rehashed frequently, but there's still no policy-based reason to move the article from its current name. We should retain the disambiguation page at Gamergate and keep this page as-is. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I suppose I'll add an official !vote here. The harassment campaign article currently gets more views than the ant article. And given the campaign's influence on the alt-right and later harassment and disinformation campaigns, I don't see that interest disappearing tomorrow or next year—but I also can't see it staying relevant forever. Every retrospective I've read puts it firmly in the past, not an ongoing event. The ant was named first and gamergate ants will almost certainly outlast the relevance of the harassment campaign, Misplaced Pages itself, and probably humans. I don't think it's a burden for searchers to land at a disambiguation page where they can see options for the harassment campaign and ant, or for the Adventure Time character or note about GamersGate. I mean, to be fair, the camelcase GamerGate redirect should probably go to the disambiguation page as well, just to help dispel that confusion. Woodroar (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
    This won't stay relevant forever, but as long as culture war isn't over, this would be the primary topic in most people's head, and a contentious topic at that. I am hesitant to do a WP:CRYSTAL here, but I am quite sure culture war will continue for at least 20 years per WP:RECENT#WP:20YEARTEST, it will be very useful to keep this as primary topic during that time. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support nobody is looking for a niche ant when they're searching for gamergate. Scuba 22:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
    nobody is looking for a niche ant when they're searching for gamergate This seems to sit squarely in statements without data territory. You're saying nobody at all searches for the ant caste by its official name??--Kevmin § 23:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, Not sure what sort of demographic group is searching for ant castes named Gamergate... unless they knew it was an ant and put (ant) at the end. Scuba 05:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
    The problem here is that "knowing to put (ant) at the end" is learned behavior for searching and editing on wikipedia, not innate search behavior taught in school or higher education. You are creating a strawman argument that the ant is NOT a search topic ever and using that to endorse your position.--Kevmin § 19:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Gamergate was a decade ago already, periodically re-upped or mentioned in passing as a historic footnote to the alt-right. The ant is eternal. The "for other uses" at the top likely needs refining is all I would say. And, unrelated to this specifically, the article long ago needed a rewrite. Koncorde (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment “the ant will always be relevant” is technically true, but dismissing Gamergate the harassment campaign as just something that will fade away in x years is WP:CRYSTAL. If we took this ad absurdum, you could say the primary topic of Mario being the video game character is recentism, because the name itself has been around much longer, but that is obviously silly because there’s only one “Mario” most people are thinking of when they type it in. Similarly, who is seriously searching for information on a type of ant when they look up “gamergate”? None of the first-page hits on DuckDuckGo are for the ant besides its Misplaced Pages page. Dronebogus (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
    It already has faded away and is referenced in the past tense. It was a thing that happened briefly a decade ago. The people searching Gamergate for ants (or writing thesis, or producing research content, or studying entomology) are the same ones doing it before 2016, and will continue to do so forever because it is, like, science. This does not mean Gamergate ceases to be mentioned, or doesn't generate hits or search results - and why prior consensus agreed on the disambiguation. This is also why the sentence In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus may be useful in determining which topic, if any, is the primary topic exists. Mario meanwhile is covered later by the statement: Non-encyclopedic uses of a term are irrelevant for primary topic purposes; for example, Twice is about a Korean pop band, despite the existence of the common English word "twice", as the latter is not a topic suitable for an encyclopedic article of WP:PRIMARY. Koncorde (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
    “Happened in the past” is not a measure of relevance any more than happening in the present is. Is Woodstock irrelevant because it only lasted a few days? Is Randy In Boise’s Junkyard Band relevant because they’re currently touring garages in the vicinity of Ada County? Dronebogus (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
    It very specifically is a measure of long term relevance as referenced in the example of Apple Inc vs Apple. The significance of coverage of the event confers notability for the creation of an article. After the event, the significance is maintained through repeated coverage. Woodstock (as the given example) has persistent, repeated, significant and notable coverage and new significant material produced about it annually (along with insignificant and non-notable coverage where it is merely referenced). Gamergate as a harassment campaign isn't. Gamergate occasionally comes up in single instances of research, commonly referenced as a precursor to some element of the Alt Right - but the topic itself isn't discussed, rather it is used as a bellwether type event. There are typically articles written from time to time with titles such as "What we didn't learn from Gamergate" etc but there is little meaningful content (either about the victims, the actions, and certainly not the perpetrators beyond the speculative attribution of the thing to a group of people who may or may not be now a part of another thing). In contrast (per example previous) Apple Inc is likely the most searched topic, the most routinely covered and so on - but an Apple is an Apple, Valve is a Valve, just as a Gamergate should be a Gamergate. Koncorde (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
    Except nobody knows what a gamergate is besides an entomologist. It isn’t even considered a valid word by my spellcheck, i.e, it’s an obscure technical term almost nobody uses. Dronebogus (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    Arguments from incredulity do not really give any traction to your point though (you not looking for the Caste =/= NO ONE searches for the caste). Policy is where changes come from, and as it stands now, there is a continually decreasing amount of novel coverage for the harassment campaign, while the ant caste isn't going to go anywhere an has the lasting persistence of science topics.--Kevmin § 18:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    Bkonrad’s argument directly below is concrete evidence that almost nobody is looking for the ant. The opposes are many, but they’re all based on four main arguments: “it’s too old” “it’s too new” “it’s the status quo” and “the ant is just more worthy”; these are all vague and subjective in their importance. Dronebogus (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
    Bkonrad’s argument missed all the points the @KoA: provided regarding the nuance of flash in the pan events vrs established topics with lasting use in a field. A situation you also are ignoring,--Kevmin § 19:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, there is a small population of individuals in a narrow field of study who might use the term with some frequency (some of whom are apparently thin-skinned enough to get bent out of shape that more people are interested in other things). This niche technical term in is dwarfed by the overwhelming disparity in what readers of this encyclopedia are looking for. Any comparison with Apple (fruit) vs Apple (company) is without merit. Nearly every speaker of English knows what the Apple fruit is, even if the company generates more traffic. For gamergate, it is likely less than .01% of English speakers who know about (or might ever think to look up) the ant-related topic. older ≠ wiser 20:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a bit ridiculous. The page views and wikinav show pretty overwhelmingly what readers are looking for in this case and it is not ants. The ants can be added specifically to the hatnote in addition to the dab so readers looking for the ant are still only one click aways just as they would be with the current setup. older ≠ wiser 17:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Theparties (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, if we can make a compromise, why not rename the ant article to Gamergate (insect/or ant)? Cburt777 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nothing that prior to this comment, the other affected page on the ants was never notified. That's an inappropriate WP:VOTESTACK in terms of notification when comments are being made about the ants while leaving out the audience that would be most knowledgeable about it when discussing WP:PTOPIC and focusing instead on only this page's audience instead. I didn't notice this was going on until I stopped over at the disambig page's talk today. I'll put notifications up shortly. KoA (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    Idk what that means Cburt777 (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Cburt777; Primary topic grabs typically require multi-page moves, but if they don't, it is still courtesy to notify the other pages listed on the disambiguation. Sennecaster (Chat) 07:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While this topic certainly still gets mentioned, coverage has declined sharply; it seems silly to suggest that it would be more appropriate as the main article than it was a decade ago when it was in full-swing. --Aquillion (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. per WP:PTOPIC. It's one thing to have the current disambiguation setup, but to call the harassment topic the primary topic would be a huge pardigm shift from previous discussions that isn't reflected here. I'll get into the substance below, but this does feel like a bludgeon for editors at the ant page not wanting to have to deal with a controversial topic. Over the last 10 years, this page has had a lot of controversy over its title and ambiguity on what to call itself to the point moratoriums have been put in place on RMs partially to give the ant topic a break. For the harassment topic to suddenly be the primary, there would have to be something huge that changed that wasn't covered ad nauseum in all the past RMs. Here's the history I had from the last RM below:
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?oldid=1041117019#Requested_move_20_August_2021
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?oldid=1039653835#Requested_move_12_August_2021
    3. Talk:Gamergate_(ant)/Archive_1#Requested_move_28_December_2015
    4. Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)/Archive_45#Requested_move_30_August_2015
    5. Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)/Archive_46#Requested_move_20_September_2015 (moratorium put in place on requested moves)
    6. Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)/Archive_32#How_about_calling_this_article_.22GamerGate.22
    7. Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)/Archive_30#.22Movement.22_or_.22Controversy.22
    8. Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)/Archive_28#Requested_move_14_February_2015
    9. Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)/Archive_13#Requested_moves
    10. Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)/Archive_37#Requested_move_15_May_2015
    This initial proposal leaves out a lot of what actually happened in the last RM, but the core issue here is that comments in support aren't really addressing the core issues found in the last move. It wasn't primarily a matter of recentism, but instead rangling with two aspects of PTOPIC:
    1. A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
    2. A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
    For the time being, the harassment campaign has higher views in terms of PT1, but all of our guidance related to views, search hits, etc. have strong cautions against carte blanche use of those stats, especially in terms of WP:NWFCTM and our internet audience where internet topics like the harassment topic are going to be more popular. For PT2 though, that's where the ant has a pretty clear case. Previous closes were clear too it is apparent that a clear majority of the community would prefer a primary topic in favour of long-term significance. Personally I think that puts the ant squarely as the primary topic even when weighing all of that with an even hand. With that said, the harassment campaign over 10 years never had primary topic status, though in the 2021 RM, it was just split down the middle to have a disambiguation page instead of having the ant as the primary topic. That at least did stop the RMs for a time, but I'm not seeing anything here that would suggest that something has majorly changed on that side since 2021.
    The other issue I'm seeing is the naming of the harassment campaign regardless of the ants. All the RMs I mentioned above show the history of how much the topic title has morphed and been contentious. Calling it the harassment campaign parenthetical seemed to finally settle that down, but undoing that is going to increase the ambiguity again. At the end of the day, the last RM at least made it so no one is astonished. You type Gamergate into the search and you're either going to see the two options you want already Gamergate (ant) or Gamergate (harassment campaign). If you click the first result, you get the disambiguation page which guides you even more. Unless there's a major resurgence of Gamergate-related harassment in coming years that truly adds to the event, it's pretty hard for it to leap-frog two levels up to the definitive primary topic. KoA (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    I thought I'd revive a bit I wrote at the last RM that actually focuses on the ant side of things.
    A gamergate is a worker ant that is able to reproduce, which the article outlines as unique for most ant species. This currently impacts all individuals of species within at least five subfamilies and 17 genera (as opposed to only a of subset of individuals within the species Homo sapiens for the harassment event). For the ants (or really any biological trait this fixed in multiple species), there is not a reasonable doubt this million-year+ old trait will just suddenly disappear and stop affecting all of these species. In fact, that CRYSTAL policy specifically calls out such arguments as a violation: Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Misplaced Pages to venture such projections. When scientists name these traits, they are generally also stable in usage Mermithergate is a similar example of these terminology being common in biology.
    Much of this long-term impact is something inherent to WP:SCHOLARSHIP/biology topics and is why PTOPIC also mentions long-term education aspects being of higher value. On that note, ant gamergates are something that’s likely to come up in biology textbooks when discussing ant colonies since eusocial animals are often a common example in varying degrees for both kids and college students. It might be a footnote in more basic biology books, but if you get into common intro-level courses at say college, this kind of thing can easily come up in sections dealing with insect diversity.
    While common usage metrics have consistently been an issue for this discussion, looking at scholarly metrics helps. Google Scholar is well known, but generally not that reliable for things like citation metrics, etc. because they include a lot of non-scholarly sources. Web of Science is usually a more conservative (scientifically, not political) search engine in that regard. Just typing in gamergate gave 189 articles (49 more than in 2021). Of these, 94 mostly focus on the gamergate ant, and 95 involved the harassment topic. That's giving the harassment topic a handicap since that includes mere mentions of Gamergate in that context in the search parameters. That paints a very different picture than those haphazardly using Google searches. At the least academic attention (or use) isn't any higher for the harassment topic, so you'd be hard pressed to call that the primary topic based on search hits. WP:PT2 is what really anchors discussion here. KoA (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per KoA and others, the fact that people are finding the article they are interested in via the disambiguation and also learning about other uses supports retention of status quo. Shyamal (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PTOPIC. While the harassment campaign is more notable in tv news and right-wing twitter/X/parler, it is not necessarily so world-wide, and most importantly, in the scholarly literature. See also: Ngrams for GamerGate vs Gamergate vs gamergate. Misplaced Pages is a scholarship-driven institution, and harassment of video game journalists is not any more important than entomology in the world of scholarship. Keep the disambiguation page, and keep these two pages (ant) and (harassment campaign) disambiguated. — Shibbolethink 18:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pure pageviews and Google hits are not the sole criterion of primary topics. As per others, mentions of the ants and the harassers are pretty balanced in scholarship, if not having the ants come out on top. Can we put a permanent moratorium on move discussions now? The "harassment campaign" part of the title gives WP:SPA editors a good reason to keep attempting this move for the foreseeable future. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Leave how the title is and don't change it, or change it to "GamerGate". I'm only speaking for the title, btw. Tonkarooson • (📭|Edits). 05:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Categories: