Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:12, 8 October 2014

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Gamergate (harassment campaign). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gamergate (harassment campaign) at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This 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 view watch edit history shell vg talk alerts purge AfDs Gameplay of Pokémon (4 participants) Lisette Titre-Montgomery (4 participants) Party royale game (3 participants) List of Minecraft characters (7 participants) Carlton Wilborn (5 participants) Cossacks (video games series) (2 participants; relisted) Rat Race (video game) (7 participants; relisted) Red Barrels (3 participants; relisted) Merge discussions Console game (discussion) Atari Interactive (discussion) Nintendo DS Lite (discussion) Pokémon Essentials (discussion) Input lag (discussion) Neo Geo Pocket (discussion) Minecraft – Volume Beta (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Donkey Kong (nom) Hotline Miami (nom) The Suicide of Rachel Foster (nom) Bejeweled (video game) (nom) Chris Redfield (nom) Good article nominations Pixel Piracy (start) River Raid (start) The Great Giana Sisters (nom) Dendy (start) Dark Urge (start) Jeanette Voerman (start) Deathloop (start) Quiver (video game) (nom) Regi (Pokémon) (start) Ridley (Metroid) (start) Blast Wind (start) Project Zero 2: Wii Edition (start) Barry Burton (start) Sea of Stars (start) Pokémon Stadium (nom) Otogirisō (start) Schim (start) Bit Pilot (start) Tom Clancy's The Division 2 (start) Unsighted (start) Gardevoir (start) Cybermania '94 (start) End Poem (nom) Nuzlocke (nom) Berzerk (video game) (start) Overcrowd: A Commute 'Em Up (start) Frostpunk (start) DYK nominations Sun Haven Reviews and reassessments A Space for the Unbound (rev) Bejeweled (video game) (rev) The Legend of Dragoon (rev) The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (nom) Appy Awards Articles that need... assessment (4) (0) reassessment (1) cleanup (3) infoboxes (9) cover art (250) screenshots (8,991) photos (70) translation from japan (187) creation merging Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet culture Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

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.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. 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.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 2 days

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2014. The result of the discussion was keep.

Asian sources / Patreon / Quinn

http://www.huxiu.com/article/43065.html

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2014/10/01/patreon-pressured-pull-sarkeesian-effect-documentary/

Running the first article through Google's translation service shows that it's reliable and detailed. Everything matches up with the record elsewhere. I link it because I'd like to use it, or Bright Side of News, as a source for gamers' earlier concerns about Quinn's Patreon patrons (beyond just Jenn Frank), many of them video games journalists and game developers.

It's also covered implicitly in http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/27/6075179/anita-sarkeesian-says-she-was-driven-out-of-house-by-threats and http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/07/the-gamergate-question/

Willhesucceed (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

What information does the article include that isn't covered in Enlglish language ones? Machine translations lose a lot of nuance. English-language sources are generally preferred, all other things being equal. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That it's more than just Jenn Frank who's funding her, i.e. other members of the gaming press and developers are doing so, too. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The Google Translation of the article is a muddled, unreadable mess, featuring phrases such as "Another game circle feminist warrior, female game commentator Anita Sarkeesian also unfortunate gun." I'm not sure what we're supposed to make of it, but it doesn't seem useful to support anything meaningful. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"The Google Translation of the article is a muddled, unreadable mess" - Good thing the English Misplaced Pages is home to 1,544 different native speakers of Chinese, right? Why not ask for help? --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the one proposing to use the source, so maybe you should ask someone else. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

But you were judging the desirability of a source based on a poor machine translation that did not accuratey reflect the contents of the piece. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read the previous posts in a thread before commenting in that thread. I did exactly what the person who proposed the article said they did — ran the article through Google's translation service, which according to them, "shows that it's reliable and detailed." On the contrary, I got a garbled mess that can be said to be neither reliable nor detailed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm well capable and willing to accurately translate the piece to English, provided that I can have reassurance that I won't be accused of BLP policy violation simply for being the messenger once I post the translation on the talk page. The piece is quite detailed in how it covers the entire history of the debacle, which can help with the verifiability of this article and fill in any missing gaps.

Having a quick Baidu search, the entire incident is well covered on Chinese websites, with articles from the IT specialist section of this news website, and this mainstream news website (in fact, QQ.com is one of the biggest mainstream news portals in mainland China in terms of readership). These are all websites that the general population takes very seriously, both sites being government registered news outlets per the information laws of the People's Republic of China (it is illegal to market yourself as a "news outlet" without government permission).

Finally, may I remind you that while machine translations work decently between Germanic languages such as English and Dutch, Chinese is a Sinic language, and that the technology for machine translation to Chinese is hardly there yet, of course you're going to get gibberish. Regardless of how much money Google attempts to pump into developing machine translations, many scientific journals guesstimate that it will be at least 25 years until we can get reliable machine translation between Germanic and Sinic languages. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're concerned that you might be accused of violating BLP by posting a translation of this article I would suggest that you not do so. We are not likely to be using any extraordinary new claims that are only sourced ot this article and have somehow been overlooked by the many, many sources that we already have. This is primarily an English-language movement, so unless the article has some insight into the effects the movement is having in Chinese-language communities or how the Chinese speaking world is participating I don't think it's likely to be any more useful than the many high quality sources we already have.

I think we're all well aware of the limitations of machine translations, but when a machine translation is the point of reference for the person initiating the discussion it's entirely fair for other participants to use and comment on it as well. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just been seeing overzealous accusations of BLP vios being thrown around all too much lately, not specifically on here, but all over the Misplaced Pages project. It's precisely the reason why I find BLP topics tedious and bothersome.

I didn't specifically say that the article contains potential BLP problems, I just don't want to be the target of any lynchmob. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that brings up the question of whether or not this is a reliable source to begin with. The translation says it's a "submission," the only byline is "game grapes" and it comes with the disclaimer that "Articles for authors independently views do not represent the position of the tiger sniffing network." (Oh, machine translation...) This would suggest that it's not a staff-written, edited/fact-checked article, but more akin to a self-published user blog. A machine translation of the Frequently Asked Questions page seems to support the proposition that articles on the site are basically self-published. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's the author's own editorial, he doesn't write on behalf of the website. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there an identifiable byline, or is it an anonymous username? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is written by 游戏葡萄 (pinyin: Yóuxì pútáo; lit. 'Game Grapes'), which is described as "A games industry media business with discerning integrity and foresight", that can be contacted with the email hi@youxiputao.com. Their writer's page refers to themselves in the first-person collective pronoun (我们), which suggests that this is a company hired to write articles on the behalf of websites, and not an individual. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

After a bit more digging, I've discovered that "Game Grapes" is officially registered as, and is operating as, "Beijing Coolgame Technology Co., Ltd.", with the ICP registration number 13050684. The company address is located at "中国 北京 朝阳区景华南街1号 旺座中心公寓西塔1208室，100022" (Unit 1208, Wangzuo Central Apartment Blocks Eastern Tower, 1 Jinghuanan Street, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China. Postcode 100022) and their telephone number is 010-53370644. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has become strangely quiet for some reason, is there a follow-up to this or what? Is there an overall verdict on these sources? Based on what I can read, the Game Grapes article is written by a company which specialises on the industry, provides a detailed and complete chronology of events, and provides strong fact-checking. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There hasn't been a specific proposal to add anything. Furthermore, I disagree that there's any evidence of strong fact-checking from this source. Moreover, who is supporting Zoe Quinn through Patreon doesn't seem to be a relevant issue and isn't discussed in any other reliable sources. As best I can tell from the machine translation, it's an anonymous claim of "leaked documents" which is not particularly convincing. There is no statement of who is supposedly supporting Quinn's Patreon... which means all we could say is "according to XXX site, some developers and journalists supported Quinn's Patreon." Absent any context, it's unclear as to why we care in this article that some unnamed, unspecified people supported another person.

I again note that for a movement whose supporters are claiming isn't about misogyny and isn't about harassing Zoe Quinn, there sure seems to be an awful lot of interest in adding information about Zoe Quinn to this article. Interesting. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Forbes again on Alexander, Intel, etc.

Link Willhesucceed (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, look and he references his Radio Nero talk at the end. Does this mean Radio Nero is to be considered reliable for interviewees' opinions? Willhesucceed (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• That narrative of gamergate should be slotted under 'fiction', not referenced in the article, but oh well. Protonk (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• The more I see of Kain's work the more concerned I am about using him in this article. We have a plethora of much more reliable sources. Not that I think Wikiproject Video Games is the sole arbiter of what sources can be considered reliable in this article ,I note that on their list of 'situational' sources they say: "Articles written by Forbes contributors do not have the same editorial oversight and may not be reliable. Editors are encouraged to find alternatives to contributor pieces." I don't think we should be including any information in this article at this point that can only be sourced to Kain, and I don't think we should be quoting him directly alongside more reliable industry voices. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Kain too problematic for you huh? Loganmac (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

How observant of you. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

While Leigh Alexander's Time article is still up? Ya, that's not happening. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a false equivalency. Does Leigh Alexander's Time article has a similar editorial status to Kain's contributor pieces on Forbes? Or do you just think she should be excluded because she's 'biased' because gaters don't like her opinions? -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a matter of egregiousness. If Leigh, with her abundant COI, which is easily discernible from her opinion pieces, her jobs, her Twitter account, etc., is allowed to contribute to this article, someone who's not toeing the line 100% but who's very well-respected in the industry is certainly allowed a place. None of what Erik writes in any of his articles is Crazy Land. Everything has been acknowledged in other sources. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's still a false equivalency. I get that you dohn't like Alexander, but her use in this article is irrellevant here. This is not about how many pro- or anti- gamergate sources are used in this article. This is about our policies as they relate to this specific source. Forbes contributor pieces simply do not have the same weight as other Forbes articles, because of the nature of their contributor program. In addition to the Wikiproject Video Games list I referenced earlier, there are many discussions in the archives of WP:RSN that discuss contributor blogs' reliablity (or lack thereof). They are not vetted or fact checked in the way that regular Forbes articles (and the articles of most reliable publications) are; they only represent the author's own work, with very little or no editorial oversight. It is very plain that at the best this should be treated as an opinion piece, not a news source. It's at least above a self-published source, but that still isn't saying all that much. He may be considered reliable for video game coverage (I haven't seen a discussion on that pointed out) but we're not just talking about video games here. We're not using him as a source for when the next big AAA game is coming out. He's not automatically reliable as a news source just because he's been used for gaming-specific news in the past. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The guy has written for Forbes, Slate, The Atlantic, Business Insider, The Week, Techonomy, and Mediaite. I'm pretty sure he knows how to write an article. It's also not like Forbes lets their contributors throw whatever they want onto the website. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's all great, but what he's writing here is an opinion blog that is not under any sort of editorial control. I'm not saying he 'doesn't know how to write an article,' I'm saying that this is not a news article with Forbes's editorial stamp on it. That's why contributor blogs are not universally regarded as reliable sources and have to be evaluated individually when they're used. The problem isn't the quality of his writing, it's that this is a distinctly low-tier source because of the nature of Forbes's contributors program. We shouldn't be making making such heavy use of one journalist's opinion and we certainly can't use it to source anything but his opinion. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Look, it's a bit preposterous to claim that there's no editorial control. Forbes has a reputation to protect, unlike, say, The Huffington Post. If Erik Kain has been writing for them for this long, it's because he's been doing a good job. They also have "producers" which deal with the contributors' pages. I don't know what that entails, but it is input from at least one other person on the articles. Finally, if hexun.com thinks he's good enough to use as a source, he's good enough; they're the largest financial website in China. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That's the consensus we have on this source. Here's an article that describes how the contributor model works that might shed some light. And even if we didn't have any standing consensus on Forbes contributors, a good general rule of thumb is that any source that has a 'does not represent the opinions of' disclaimer is an opinion source, not a news source. Currently he's already getting too much weight in this article, especially given that he's not particularly notable for his commentary on gamergate. We should seek to diversify the opinions we're using, rather than piling in ever more citations to Erik Kain. -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look at that, but just a quick note: if there's anyone that's considered reliable at Forbes re: the video gaming industry, it's Kain. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If that were true I'd expect there to be a note to that effect in that source list indicating he's an exception to the projects advice for editors to 'find alternatives to contributor pieces,' but that's beside the point: he's not just reporting on video games here, he's reporting on a social phenomenon. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The ultimate question is whether or not he is a reliable source. You seem to be suggesting otherwise, but he frequently cites secondary sources and makes note of what he is discussing and where he is pulling information from. Frankly, he does more fact-checking than a lot of the supposedly professional journalists, many of whom make factual errors. The New Yorker in their coverage, for instance, appeared to rely almost exclusively on Zoe Quinn as a source and as a result made at least two factual errors, one of them hopeful, the other one pretty major (they claimed that Grayson had not had his professional ethics attacked, something which innumerable sources contradict directly, including Kotaku itself) and that's being generous to them. Is Kain making lots of mistakes? Is Kain referenced by other people as someone who matters/knows what he is talking about? The answer to the first appears to be no, and the answer to the second, doing some Googling, appears to be yes. He seems legitimate enough. I dunno. Our ultimate goal with reliable sources is to make sure that the information they are giving us is, well, reliable. Do we have any really good reason to doubt his reliability on this matter? Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@TaraInDC: Incidentally, where are you seeing the 'does not represent the opinions of'? I don't see anything like that I go to his articles. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The New Yorker in their coverage, for instance, appeared to rely almost exclusively on Zoe Quinn as a source Oh, good lord, this again. "They just took her word for it all and didn't fact check!!!!!" Gters all think they're authorities on journalism, don't they? It's a profile of her. That doesn't mean that they didn't fact check. I can tell you with confidence that information that is sourced only to Quinn and not independently verified will be phrased in a way that makes the fact clear, and that anything that isn't is a statement that The New Yorker has verified to the point where they feel comfortable making it uncritically. Your claims of 'factual errors' are spurious. We don't pick apart sources, find wording we disagree with, and use that wording to discredit the entire source, and we especially don't do it in an effort to frame an opinion columnist as The Only Neutral Journalist. Kain's pieces are clearly labeled as opinion (The exact quote is "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.") I do not have to prove that Kain is making factual errors here: my argument is quite simply that he is an opinion columnist and must be treated as such, and that his opinions must not be given any special weight in comparison with others just because he's one of the few sources available that the gaters like. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting quotes here

• "people say conservative actor Adam Baldwin started #GamerGate, and he certainly was the one who came up with the hashtag, but it was Leigh Alexander and the flood of similar articles following hers that truly sparked this backlash against the games media"
• "Now we have writers at video game publications perpetuating this stereotype for absolutely no good reason other than to keep a flame-war burning"

It should be added if weight is needed sometime Loganmac (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are you being so confrontational?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We already give Kain more space and quote him more often than any other single writer in this article. I realize that he's basically the only reliable source you want to quote because he's the only one that consistently agrees with your position, but this is getting kind of silly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Chill out, it's OK, just leave that quote out. Wouldn't you say it was problem that all reactions to Intel were negative in that paragraph? I tried adding some neutrality. And no, I disagree with him in a lot of things, like where he says boycotts are bad. And no he's not the only reliable source I want to quote. Loganmac (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

And here's another Forbes writer: link. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I think only Erik Kain was found to be RS at Forbes blogs Loganmac (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Each contributor is given individual weight. Erik Kain has a long standing of knowing his stuff (see the Mass Effect 3 fiasco, for example), but I don't see a reason to exclude this opinion, if it's needed. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Paul Tassi also wrote an article about the same subject matter on Forbes today. Seriously, Leigh Alexander should not be being used as a source for factual information here. As far as Kain goes, given that he has continually cited other sources and demonstrated that his material is well-researched, I don't see any reason to not use him as a source. He has done a better job of fact-checking than a lot of other sources have. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Will you shut up about your and the movement's perception that anything Leigh Alexander writes is biased and unusable on this page? It's just the same shit repeated every other day.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Leigh Alexander is usually cited in concert with other sources and at least once in concert with Kain. Aside from the note about the allegations against Quinn in the lede where Kain is also cited, she is only ever cited for general background information or her own opinion. It is possible that certain details could be supported by other sources, but I see no real reason to reduce our current use of Kain or Alexander. We should keep in mind that Alexander is personally very close to this controversy and thus is not sufficiently independent to be considered a reliable source for much outside her opinion. She should not be cited on her own for any claims about GamerGate itself.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see how people keep saying she's close to the controversy. Is it just her "gamers are dead" piece or was it something else?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate has a habit of rendering women who comment on its ongoing harassment campaigns 'involved' in said campaigns. Alexander is considered by some to have a "COI" because she was harassed and obsessed over by gaters because of her articles on the movement. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is shaped more by the fact that she was an editor at Kotaku and still writes for them in an official capacity. We can argue about the other gaming outlets, but I would like to think we all agree that Kotaku's reporting on the controversy should not be taken as independent coverage given that their reporter's involvement with a game developer was the catalyst for this whole thing. Alexander not writing the pieces for Kotaku does not change that she has deep ties to the outlet and remains tied to them.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well that's even lamer. I don't agree that Kotaku is an automatically unreliable source just because the Gaters have leveled provably false accusations of malfeasance at it, actually, but that's neither here nor there, because it's completely unreasonable to expect Kotaku's supposed conflict of interest to 'taint' every author who writes for the site and follow them when they're writing in other reliable publications with their own editorial staff and their own reputations to maintain. You do realize you're essentially claiming that you know more about journalistic integrity than Time Magazine, don't you? If she's good enough for Time, she's good enough for Misplaced Pages. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this is an unactionable request. There are four Kotaku sources. One is the key article that states there was nothing between Quinn and Grayson that influenced a review, refuting the accusation- there should be zero question about the inclusion of this. Two are pre-events, pointing out the only other two times that Quinn was discussed. Neither are a problem here. The fourth is an opinion piece of the "death of gamer" and is just as "biased" as all other "death of gamer" pieces - that is, they are opinion pieces - and thus used only as such. Kotaku is otherwise not used to present any other factual information, so there's no issue with that; we have no Kotaku "reporting of the controversy" in the article period. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There is indeed no real use of Kotaku as an independent source, only as a primary source for its own reports. Alexander is also not really being used on her own for anything contentious. I am just saying that any attempt to treat her as an independent source on GamerGate would be mistaken. Our use of her writing right now is pretty much in line with what I think is acceptable. Anything more would be inappropriate. Just because she is writing for other outlets does not take away from her own connection to the controversy. Would we consider Fox News reporters independent in a controversy over Fox News coverage just because said reporter wrote a piece on the controversy for another outlet? People who work for the group or individuals embroiled in a controversy should not be considered independent of the controversy.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Alexander's piece in Gamasutra (a site devoted to video game journal) would certainly not be an independent source, now that it's also targetted as the cause of Intel's ad-pull. But her piece in Time magazine - which we should be assuming has had editorial controls and others making sure that what she wrote in that represented the tone the magazine wanted to give - should be considered sufficiently independent. Yes, if we can replace something she said with something like the WA Post or the like, yeah, I'm all for that, but that specific article is fine to use. The argument "People who work for the group or individuals embroiled in a controversy should not be considered independent of the controversy." would mean nearly every single source would to be eliminated since even the more neutral sources like WA Post and the like are written by people that are video game journalists, just not for video-game only sites. That's not going to happen obviously. --MASEM (t) 23:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

To add one thing - Alexander's Time piece was written before the Gamasutra piece and before she was embroiled in this. That, importantly, identifies the Time piece as acceptable, but should she come out with another piece in Time, we should be careful with that. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

To add one thing - Alexander's Time piece was written before the Gamasutra piece and before she was embroiled in this. That, importantly, identifies the Time piece as acceptable, but should she come out with another piece in Time, we should be careful with that. Ah, another one who thinks they know journalistic ethics better than Time Magazine. A reliable source is a reliable source, and Gamergate's decision to harrass Alexander and campaign against Gamasutra does not change that Time Magazine is a reliable source. But more broadly, we can not allow gamergate to control who is and is not considered a reliable source by recusing any source the gaters targets for publishing unfavorable opinions about it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that a second Time piece by Alexander would be unusable, I said we'd have to be careful with it. It would depend on the content; knowing Time, it likely would not be an opinion piece but a restatement of events to date and as long as it was repeated was we know was patently true, would be fine to use. But she is no longer independent as a key actor in the whole mess, so we would prefer those that are more independent than she presently is if we have a choice of sourcing to use. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem there is that the way things are going we're eventually just going to run out of independent sources other than the few who don't get targeted because pander to the gaters. That list of sites to email advertisers about keeps growing. If we're going to consider Alexander an 'involved party,' thought, then Kain certainly is as well: he's actively engaging with the gaters online, guesting on streams and so forth. Or is it only negative or involuntary 'involvement' that causes a COI? -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm considering her involved as that her specific gamasutra piece is the center of attention of other sources. Kain's pieces for Fobres - while well read, are not targets for anything, so he remains independent, as well as the bulk of other sources. (I'm aware that there's lists on the GG side of journalists and others they don't consider fair, but we are free to ignore that for purposes of WP's independance) Arguably, the only people right now that are not independent are Quinn, her ex, Sarkeensian, Grayson, Stephan Tolito (as editor for Kotaku), Phil Fish, and Leigh Alexander. There might be one or two more but these are the main ones. If this continues to a point where that list grows so much that we cannot have anyone covering it, that... would be interested but a near impossibility. I am not worried about the bulk of our independent sources "disappearing" as you claim. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

So you are saying that only negative or involuntary 'involvement' (eg harassment by gaters) confers a conflict of interest, and being chummy with gaters online does not, but now it's because 'other sources' are writing about that harassment? Either a source is reliable or it's not: we don't single out individual contributors to exclude because they've been targeted by a movement whose entire MO is targeting people who say things they don't like. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh, yes we do. Sources are evaluated on case-by-case basis, though we do consider the works that they appear in. Standard practice here. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, WP:RS does not give so much leeway for 'evaluation' that POV motivated editors can discard any source they don't like on flimsy justification about 'involvement.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything in policy which says that when a source becomes the center of attention of other sources, that makes the source "unreliable." Your argument has the entirely perverse effect of encouraging one side or the other to make a source they don't like "unreliable" merely by attacking that source, which you claim makes that source "involved." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say "unreliable", I said "no longer independent". We can use "dependent" sources with caution, but we'd prefer that if the same info can be sourced to independent ones, we use that. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, that's absurd and has no support in Misplaced Pages policy anywhere — you're effectively creating a heckler's veto by allowing harassment and criticism campaigns against people to affect how we consider that person's work.

I can find umpteen Reddit posts, YouTube videos and tweets calling the Washington Post biased for its coverage of GamerGate — are the Washington Post articles now "no longer independent" too? Where does this rabbit hole end? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

To both NbSB and TaraInDC - Please see WP:QS under WP:V policy, specifically that because her article is a central facet of the details of GG, she has a conflict of interest; also see WP:IS essay that gives other policy reasons. This makes her a dependent source for WP purposes. This does not mean we cannot use her future work for sourcing but it does mean that if we can source a fact she stated in her piece to an independent source, we should replace her piece with that source. But if she's the only one stating a point to be included, that's still fine. No, just because reddit threads claim a source is biased does not change its status here; I am strictly speaking when a person becomes a necessary part of the neutral GG narrative as Alexander has. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Your reading of policy creates an unacceptable heckler's veto on otherwise-impeccable reliable sources and I reject it entirely. Basically what you're saying is that "The Washington Post hasn't been the subject of enough criticism and harassment yet; but if we wait another week, maybe then it'll get attacked even more and will then have a conflict of interest." Your position encourages criticism and harassment of sources by making it so that if the criticism and harassment becomes newsworthy, that source is then considered "involved" and "dependent." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so we're only going to aide Gamergate in silencing the women it singles out for intense, hateful, personal harassment? This is absurd. This is an entire movement centered around attacking people who say things it doesn't like, and you want to give them the power to award a 'conflict of interest' to anyone it pleases. There is a very detailed footnote that outlines specific cases where a source may be ruled 'questionable' because it has an 'apparent conflict of interest.' Can you point to specific wording in that note that would apply to a journalist who was harassed by a movement most notable for using harassment as a silencing technique? -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You both are overdramatizing what I'm saying and showing the problems that I pointed out below that you want to ignore the process of good encyclopedia writing to pile onto the GG side. Remember, I didn't say Alexander's future articles would be unusable, just not preferred if there are other sources that say the same information. You need to detach from the emotional aspects of this and remember we are writing a clinical article about this. If you can't do that, you should not be writing on this article. --MASEM (t) 00:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

To add for NSNB: the reason this is a conflict of interest is that the site that Alexander is editor-at-large for has its ad pulled due to Intel's action, and as such she has a conflict. I very much doubt that WA Post will ever be under that type of scrutiny to worry about. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

These tone arguments are utterly unconvincing. Your section below about your 'larger concern' was nothing short of inflammatory and your decision to lecture all the editors on this page who are in your view "decidedly anti-GG (or definitely not proGG)" while ignoring the squadron of SPAs and POV warriors is extremely telling when it comes to your own biases. You are, to my knowledge, the only one who had broken the 3 revert rule on this article leading up to its umpteenth protection today, and we both know that isn't the first time you've done so. Please don't presume to tell other editors they're not sufficiently 'detached' to edit this article. Please stick to discussing the article and refrain from speculating on the mental states of the participants. Leave that to neutral parties. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not ignoring the fact there are SPA and meatpuppetry attempts here, and will also continue to make sure that those attempts to sway this article are not given in to. But I'm aware that editors like you are refusing to adapt the proper neutral stance to this article, and this is another example of this. Alexander and Gamasutra now have a conflict of interest, and as such, their sources are not pristine -not unusable, but just not the favored ones to be used. This is long-standing practice on WP. --MASEM (t) 01:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not ignoring the fact there are SPA and meatpuppetry attempts here, and will also continue to make sure that those attempts to sway this article are not given in to. But you're only lecturing the non-SPAs and non-POV pushers. Instead, as has been pointed out more than once, you're pandering to them, and reverting edits that they don't like. That, combined with the edit warring, makes you look like a hypocrite when telling me that I'm not 'detached' enough from the article.

Alexander and Gamasutra now have a conflict of interest, and as such, their sources are not pristine -not unusable, but just not the favored ones to be used. This is long-standing practice on WP. I'm asking for a particular portion of that extremely tightly written definition of "Conflicts of Interest" that relate to Alexander, not another assertion that it's there. What you're advocating here is actually a very dangerous idea in the long run: making Misplaced Pages complicit in the silencing of dissenting voices by an angry online mob. I don't see how the policy as it's currently written considers being the victim harassment for expressing an opinion some find objectionable a conflict of interest in and of itself. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No I'm not just "lecturing" the non-SPAs. I've been debating the SPA and meatpuppets too. It's a tug of war. And "making Misplaced Pages complicit in the silencing of dissenting voices by an angry online mob" - well, I wouldn't describe it like this but we also have to be clinical about this, and that means that if a source gets "tainted" because the GG side triggers a series of events that make the source a conflict of interest for future articles, that's what we have to do. But remember you keep ignoring what I said: future Alexender pieces can still be used, they just become dependant sources because of the conflict of interest, and we put more value in independent sources than dependent ones. If Alexander is the only one to report in a factual manner about a GG event written in a neutral way, even on Gamasutra, there's nothing stopping us from using it; the only change that happens now is that if, say, the NYTimes writes on the same event later, we replace the sourcing for the factual aspects. We are not silencing those that get targetted by GG, just making sure we're aware that we'd like to use other sourcing if it is possible. That's far far far diffeerent from what you or NBSB are trying to claim I'm saying. In addition , your language still shows the emotional charge we cannot take on WP. I know harassment is wrong, but we have to be clinic and not write this article with that attitude; we include that of course becuase that's what the sources say but if we are prejudging any party in this before editing, that's not appropriate for the article. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be modifying your position somewhat from some posts to others, with some being emphatic about Alexander's "COI" and others less so, so I'll just say that based on current policy there is no sound argument that Alexander's existing Time article is in any way probematic, and that at the absolute worst a possible 'conflict of interest' might require discusion: my reading of the policy does not in any way indicate that she is to automatically be treated with suspicion.

But your editing here has been disruptive. Talking about 'being clinical about this' and informing a fellow contributor she's being "emotional" aren't going to change that. Not that I agree with your assessment - I think it's just a lazy way to discredit me - but I don't see anything in wikipedia policy that implies that edtiors must be automotons. At most there are rules about civility, but you can be incivil without being emotional and vice versa. I'm not aware of any 'no showing emotion' clause.

Just as with the dismissive response to this talkpage discussion, which left me wondering why I didn't just blindly revert and call it good, I am beginning to regret my decision to err on the side of 'not starting drama' by refraining from simply reporting your edit warring. Your discussion below, while couched in 'neutral' terms, was quite simply inflammatory. You seem to have made this personal, and your decisions to frame me as being 'emotional,' 'not detached,' by telling me again and again that I'm somehow trying to 'skew' this article and 'pile in' sourced information that you think is too critical of gamergate. Everyone has biases. It's inevitable. But when an editor refuses to acknowledge their own while repeatedly pointing out those of one side of the discussion, that becomes disruptive. The accusations from the POV warriors are bad enough, but coming from you, an edit-warring admin who is positioning yourself as a 'neutral' party in this discussion, it's downright insulting. No more lecturing me about my bias, please. See to the plank in your own eye and let someone who's not involved hand out the yellow cards. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Did I ever say that the current Time article by Alexander is a problem? No. You're overreacting with far too much emotion which is the problem here, and putting too much emphasis on the harassment angle. I'm not dismissing that as an issue in the larger GG debate, but in writing this article we have to be hands off about it, and cannot let that drive us to paint one side in a very bad light (beyond the basics that the sources give) , which you have continually pushed. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Some in this section and elsewhere have, and as I said I think you've been vaguer in some comments than others, so I wanted to lay out my position in full as plainly as I could. Who's overreacting?

I think your concern about "paint(ing) one side in a very bad light" isn't very helpful, though: we should be framing this as a WP:WEIGHT issue, not a problem with 'piling on against gamergate.' If you think ideas or issues are being given too much or too little weight, explain how and where, but there's no point where we go 'nope, that's too much negative information about the gaters' and call a moratorium on further additions that might be perceived as negative. Your concern about 'piling on' seems rooted in an assumption of bad faith about other editors who you have been suggesting are doing this deliberately to 'bias' the article, and that isn't a fair assessment. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I've pointed out at least one specific case below: the quote by Amanda Marcotte in the "attack on women" section says nothing that hasn't already been made clear by RS - that the harassment was seen as misogynic. The earlier discussion of the implied nature of the harassment isn't going to disappear, but this quote only exists to pile on more. That's the problem here, and when you and others argue that, paraphrase, we have to make sure this article doesn't succumb to those that harass women, that's putting an emotional bend on the writing which we cannot use as an encyclopedia. We're not here to correct the injustice (nor correct the sourcing imbalance), even if it should be obvious it is wrong. We call that side out once on it because the bulk of the press does do that, and that's all that should be said on that aspect, and then move into actually trying to acknowledge the issues within whatever balance we can make from the sourcing (knowing that the anti-GG side will be better covered here). This is fundamental to writing articles on controversial topics on WP which I've been through before and know how clinical everyone needs to be, and that's just not happening here. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's one case, and one that I haven't even been involved in. Hardly damning evidence that justifies telling everyone who is either 'anti' or just 'not pro-' gamergate that they're 'piling on.' Working on actual, actionable problems is much more helpful than making vague accusations. When you're telling a large number of editors, over and over, that they are biased as if that claim alone is enough to make whatever change they are working for or against invalid, you're only contributing to a combative editing environment where you imply bad faith on the parts of the contributors you are saying are 'piling on.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The other damning evidence here about the attitudes of some editors is the immediate assumption of bad faith towards SPAs. SPAs are not immediately bad - often they are but we are supposed to assume good faith otherwise. In this particularly situation we need to be aware there's a lot of people attempting to swing the article towards a proGG slant, and we can point out why we can't do that, but we should not immediately dismiss them just because they are an SPA or IP, and that's what I'm seeing a lot of as well, and a sign that one may be emotionally charged to a point that they are unaware they are biasing this article or creating a battle ground. I don't have any personal care about which way GG ends up going (save for the death threats and harassment part) , so I'm able to see the problems that are happening here with clarity, and there are clearly others that are seeing this too. --MASEM (t) 03:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The other damning evidence here about the attitudes of some editors is the immediate assumption of bad faith towards SPAs. That would be a neat trick considering I don't even bother checking a contributor's history unless they show up and immediatley start crowing about how "Know Your Meme" is more neutral than this article. Oddly enough I'm seeing you do a lot of this: telling someone they're 'bad' rather than showing them. Can you point to places where I have dismissed someone who was credibly editing in good faith as an SPA without addressing their complaints?

I don't have any personal care about which way GG ends up going (save for the death threats and harassment part) , so I'm able to see the problems that are happening here with clarity, and there are clearly others that are seeing this too. And once again, informing us you're unbiased doesn't make it so. You keep ignoring this comment, but I'm going to keep making it: you are the one who's been breaking 3RR. Your claim of neutrality is simply not credible. You're involved. You have a point of view. You are not neutral. Being invovlved sin't inherently bad, but claiming you're not is dishonest. Who are these 'others?' Why are you so intent on framing yourself as neutral, and why are you trying to paint so many fairly reasonable editors as POV warriors? Are you aiming to be the last man standing when the "activists" get topic banned? -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's be clear on this. WP:RS says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It follows that with "The word 'source' when citing sources on Misplaced Pages has three related meanings: . . . the creator of the work (the writer, journalist) . . . Any of the three can affect reliability." So that means whether the journalist is a third-party is an important consideration. No one can really consider a writer and former editor for Kotaku to be a third party when the whole controversy started out because of allegations regarding Kotaku. For those who respond that the allegations are false, even if that were entirely true it would not change the fact that Kotaku is not an independent source regarding this matter. People with official ties to Kotaku and long-standing professional history with the outlet should not be considered independent either.

The idea that someone who writes for Kotaku in an official capacity and was once a high-level staff member there can be trusted as a source about people criticizing said outlet is absurd. On the other hand, talking to GamerGate people or talking about GamerGate on a radio show does not affect the independence of a source. Note that I am not talking about bias here, which appears to be what some are talking about above. This is a matter of professional independence. Alexander cannot be reasonably considered independent of Kotaku when she is a writer and former editor at the outlet and Kotaku cannot be reasonably considered independent of the controversy. Staff at Kotaku have actually said they are not covering the issue as they would like because of the controversy implicating one of their journalists. Even if they do not adhere to that perfectly, the fact they consider it a legitimate complaint suggests we should as well and that, by extension, means we should regard Alexander as having a conflict of interest and thus not treat her as a third-party source.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, using Alexander is fine per WP:RS, unless you can point to specific wording that would give her writing in outlets like Time a conflict of interest. Trashing her isn't going to do it: you need to connect all the trash talk to specific sections of specific policies that you think relate to your arguments. Even if Kotaku were unreliable - it's not - writing for an unreliable or COI'd source does not irrevocably 'taint' you and prohibit any of your writings elsewhere for the rest of your career from being used on Misplaced Pages. Hell, even Milo has some publication credits in real news sources that might conceivably be usable somewhere on Misplaced Pages. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Policy has been pointed out why you are wrong. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. As above, I'm asking for specific wording that relates to Alexander's writing in, for example, Time. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether the author of a piece can be considered reliable is a key consideration that affects a source's reliability, not just the publication in which a piece appears.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The entire reason we consider certain publications reliable is because of their editoral oversight. We trust them to select the right people to write their articles and to fact-check and review them to ensure their accuracy before publication. Major publications like Time and The New Yorker are better at this than us, which is why we are able to use them without needing to perform extensive original research vetting each article that's added to an article. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. If a an editor with a strong bias (I am not saying Alexender is this in the present case) writes in an RS, the "reliability" of that source not not automatically bless the article as fair game for us to use. It could be okay if the bias does not show itself, it could be a problem. Sources are evaluated case by case, not work by work. --MASEM (t) 02:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

My problem with this is that gamergate loves dismissing sources because they're 'biased.' I think that's far too easy and too vague a complaint, and it's one that's been leveled against far too many journalists already. While there may be other cases where there could be legitimate concerns, we're talking about using Alexander as a source at all in this subthread, remember, calling into question all of her writing on gamergate including her piece in Time. In this case, it's clear that there are no legitimate reasons to call the editorial oversight of Times into question. What I'm trying to discourage is the gater 'let's see what we can dig up' approach to discrediting women with unproved opinions. That's not the approach we should be taking. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You're misreading yet again, this has not about "using Alexander as a source at all", it is about being careful in the future with any sources from her. They aren't invalidated by the dependence of her to GG, they are just not the best sources to use if there are others out there. --MASEM (t) 03:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No one can really consider a writer and former editor for Kotaku to be a third party when the whole controversy started out because of allegations regarding Kotaku. For those who respond that the allegations are false, even if that were entirely true it would not change the fact that Kotaku is not an independent source regarding this matter. People with official ties to Kotaku and long-standing professional history with the outlet should not be considered independent either. The idea that someone who writes for Kotaku in an official capacity and was once a high-level staff member there can be trusted as a source about people criticizing said outlet is absurd You are not the only person in this discussion expressing 'concerns' about Alexander. This subthread (among others) has very plainly been about Alexander in general, not hypothetical future articles she may write. You're the one who introduced the topic of hypothetical future articles: prior to that we were discussing the validity of her existing sources exclusively. If you need further proof, scroll up and find the very first time Alexander was mentioned in this discussion thread. And yet you're telling me I'm the one 'being emotional' and 'misreading.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Editorial oversight is only one part of the equation. Independence from the subject is important for all sorts of reasons in determining reliability. Were Nathan Grayson to write a fully-vetted piece for The New Yorker attacking GamerGate would we be treating his piece the same as the countless people with no connection to the controversy? Of course not. That would be stupid.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a weak argument, though, because it's absurd. There's no reason to think that The New Yorker would ask Grayson to write anything but maybe an opinion column (which we would obviously treat as such wherever it was published). That's one of the reasons they're a respected news source: they don't do that kind of thing. You can't argue against a respectable publication's editorial oversight by asking 'but what if they did something no respectable publication would do?' -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the point. If they did do it, that would not suddenly make Grayson a reliable source on the controversy. The reputation of an outlet on its own is not sufficient to cover for other problems with a source. Alexander's independence is a reliability issue that is distinctly separate from any considerations regarding Time magazine itself. No amount of editorial oversight changes the fact that Leigh Alexander writes for Kotaku and was previously an editor at Kotaku. She is too close to the controversy to be considered an independent source. Just because she wrote the piece for Time magazine does not take away from the fact that it is her writing and not a Time staffer's writing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A better way to say it is that Alexander's piece in Time has to be evaluated for three factors: we know Time does have a reputation so they aren't going to let Alexander get away with slander or outright falsification, so their reputation is a net positive; Alexander (prior to the Gamasutra piece) is slightly biased as a video game journalist on one side of the debate, so that's a net negative; and finally the content of the article is presented about as factual as one could expect and not written as an opinion piece, a net positive. As such, the Time article by Alexander is probably fine. But we can't just judge on any one of those points alone. --MASEM (t) 06:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Except, it is not about bias. It is about independence. Leigh Alexander is simply too close to the subject. Hers is not an outside view of the situation, but one that is going to be informed in large part by personal and professional loyalties. That is why independence is one of the criteria for reliability because we need an outside view.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 13:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not that I agree with the current assessment of her as an 'involved party,' but there's absolutely no argument for calling her involved at the time those articles were written. Gamergate didn't freak out and start trying to ruin her career or get advertisers to drop support of Gamasutra over her writing until afterwards. A single provably false accusation of 'nepotism' against one of her colleagues at one of the publications where she writes does not render her 'involved.' Would you argue that, because Alexander wrote at Time and gamergate is obsessed with discrediting her, anyone else who writes for Time is tainted by her involvement? We're not playing six degrees of Nathan Grayson here: if we let any connection with an 'involved party' affect the usability of a journalist as a source, we're going to run out of journalists really quickly. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

At the time they were written she was only involved as a member of the group (not an individual) of one side of the debate. There would be a slight bias but for the most part the Time article should be considered mostly independent because of Time's reputation, and the fact that her piece was meant as more factual than opinion (compared to the GAmasutra one). But take the hypothetical and extremely unlikely case that Time allowed Alexander to publish a full-on emotionally charged rant without labeling it as an opinion piece. If Time let that through like that (and without apology later), that would bring future articles from Time from any editor possibly questionable as an "independent" source, because Time should never have published something like that, and without clearly marking it as an opinion, implicitly stating their side in the overall issue. Again, this is likely never going to happen with Time (they'd not allow that type of article in the first place, and even if they did they would clearly mark it op-ed), however, this has what has happened to Gamasutra - not only being part of this now, but the fact that the piece from Alexander was not marked op-ed (which they do have ability to do), meaning the staff shares the same POV. Doesn't invalid Gamasutra as a source, they are just very much no longer an "independent" source for covering this at the time being. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel the need to point out that you guys have written over 5600 words total arguing about the validity of a source that doesn't even exist. Bosstopher (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's really not true. Masem has for some reason been talking primarily about a hypothetical source since about the midway point of the discussion, but that's by no means the only topic here. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There is zero harm in discussion. And I have to use the hypothetical because presently there are no articles that exist that might be an issue, but we do have to be aware that going forward we are going to have to start watching the use of some of these sources. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There's really no point in saying that, though, because until an article has been written we have no way of knowing whether or not we'll have to be 'careful' about using it. Saying so assumes a) that Alexander will begin writing problematic articles and b) that editors will begin using them in problematic ways. So it's a distraction, and one that has unnecessarily complicated this discussion to the point where you've been accusing me of 'misreading' a discussion which you have decided is now entirely about hypothetical articles and not existing ones. As the discussion about her existing sources is in fact ongoing, your repeated injections about hypothetical future sources are just muddying the waters. Please stop worrying about sources that haven't been written yet and focus on the ones that are actually being challenged. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

So we've got a whole lot of text above. Can someone tell me (preferably in 4 sentences or less) why Alexander is not considered a reliable source on Gamergate writ large? Also if we're considering the Time piece relatively more reliable than the Gamasutra piece I'd like a pithy explanation of that decision as well. Protonk (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not an issue of reliability, it's the "dependence" now; since her piece at Gamasutra is central to Intel's decision, she and Gamasutra are dependent sources as directly involved parties, still reliable but future articles of theirs should be replaced with more independent sources if they exist for the same facts, but otherwise still fine to use. Her existing piece in Time is fine, since that was before the Gamasutra piece; it might have a bit of bias as a game journalist, but that's it. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: This "dependence" refers to this piece and the relationship was asserted because Intel pulled ads after the piece was published? Protonk (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's the right piece, but only became an issue after Intel pulled their ads and it was established that Intel's reason to pull was over that specific article. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

So how does that make the original piece dependent in any way? Had intel not pulled ads what would've been the problem with using the piece? Protonk (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I never said the original piece is suddenly now dependent, but that in the future, now that Gamasutra's finances (and ergo Alexander's job) has been impacted by this, future articles should be considered dependent. Mind you, the original piece itself is very opinionated (in contrast to her Time article), and we have not actually used it save to identify it in the Intel ad-pull aspect. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that makes a little more sense, though I'm not sure of the logic whereby an organization which has its ads pulled by a company is now more problematic. If a newspaper wrote about a local coal company and then the coal company pulled ads, why would that lead us to believe that future stories from them should be treated with more suspicion? Protonk (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

They are dependent, and WP values independent sources over dependent ones, particularly if we start getting into contentious claims. For example, and strictly in the hypothetical, if Gamasutra suddenly had a piece today about questionable business practices at Intel after the ad-pull issues, that would be very suspicious - not immediately one to reject, but we'd really like to see confirmation from others knowing that Gamasutra has been financially hurt by Intel's decision. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That strikes me as a very specific hypothetical where the general result is to claim that articles on "gamergate" from GamaSutra are now dependent because intel pulled ads over an opinion piece. Sure, if GS suddenly decided to investigate intel that's certainly a factor to weigh, but we're not talking about that, we're talking about writing on game culture which GS has done for years. Now they're party to it because an advertiser had an opinion? Given that intel likely pulled ads due to an email campaign (and one is in the works with NVIDIA as well), that's a line of reasoning which terminates by proscribing sources from any outlet with advertisers susceptible to public pressure. Protonk (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not speaking to any potential site that there's current email campaigns to remove ads from - until it actually happens, and the site is affected in a financial matter. It presently only applies to the specific situation with Gamasutra and Intel as relating to GG. Gamasutra for all other topics remains a perfectly fine RS. But because Intel cost Gamasutra money (loss of advertizing revenue) as a result of the actions of the GG side, we just need to keep in mind they are no longer an uninvolved party. That's why the other sites are still not in question because they haven't been touched financially by anyone's actions yet. And to what Tara has been saying, this is all the hypothetical; nothing needs to change now, but we just have to be aware what might come going forward. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, Devil's Advocate thinks she's involved because of the accusations with her co-worker at Kotaku, Nathan Grayson, and that all of her writing should be used with that involvement in mind. Masem thinks her existing writing is fine as it's being used in the article now and we should be 'careful' about any future articles by her. I think her existing writing is fine, period, and that handwringing about future biased articles seems like an excuse to take a jab at her credibility. I personally don't feel that the Time piece is any better or worse than the Gamasutra piece, but there are fewer excuses for 'concerns' about Time from the gamergate crowd, so it's simply easier to use that source in an already embattled article. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is not merely that accusations were made against a co-worker. What Grayson was accused of cuts at the core of Kotaku's credibility as any reporter for an outlet engaged in journalistic impropriety taints the whole outlet. People closely associated with that outlet can generally be expected to be involved. Regardless of whether they had hung him out to dry or circled wagons around him, one cannot consider those associated with Kotaku to be independent on this matter. Independence is a criteria for reliability. A reliable source has to be a third-party and Leigh Alexander is not a third party because she is a regular writer for them and a former editor. You snark above about how you think my reasoning suggests that Time magazine is suddenly not reliable, but that is completely different. Alexander has, as far as I know, never written for them before, let alone on a regular basis, and has never been a member of their staff. That is not the case with Kotaku.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

What Grayson was accused of cuts at the core of Kotaku's credibility as any reporter for an outlet engaged in journalistic impropriety taints the whole outlet. No, it doesn't, because those accusations proved to be completely baseless. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to get how this works. Whether the allegations were correct or not, the allegations in themselves mean we cannot take any reporting from Kotaku or anyone very close to Kotaku as being independent. It is those allegations of journalistic impropriety at Kotaku that started the whole thing off and that means people with close connections to Kotaku, such as Leigh Alexander, should not be treated as third-parties.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You claims have been thoroughly debunked. Even Masem doesn't regard the existing articles by Alexander as problematic. There's just no substance to your argument.

Incidentally, can either of you point to the section on 'dependence' in WP:RS or WP:V? Misplaced Pages:Independent sources is, I note, an essay, and I see no mention of 'dependence' in the main policy. I can only recall 'independent sources' being particularly important with regards to notability concerns. Once Kotaku had been cleared (and remember, the fact that these allegations are false has been published in sources entirely independent of Kotaku) then there should be no concern about conflicts of interest, because there was no longer any reasonable justification for regarding the site with suspicion. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

POV tag

And so, a POV tag should remain. Skrelk (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We've addressed the POV aspects numerous times on this page, and have come to the consensus that there's little we can do to correct the fact that the press will bias their reporting on this. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've provided links, in my previous post on this talk page to several unbiased sources. If you take out Vox, Verge, Gawker, etc, most reporting is unbiased, and the raw facts from some of the factually credible biased reporting can be rendered NPOV, and suitable. Skrelk (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

And we're addressed those already and sme of them were already being used, and one fails our RS policy. Additionally, no reporting on this will be unbiased, and we are using the least-biased sources to set the framework of events and core issues. That's all within POV policy. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You also removed cites to the Los Angeles Times and The Telegraph — both of which are impeccable mainstream sources. So basically "If you take all of the sources out that I disagree with, then the sources are unbiased." Quite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Those are really low quality sources, to be fair, even if they are reliable. There are any number of other sources that could replace them, and for the better, although I don't see why the sentence has to be loaded with references; two sources seems good enough, anyway. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's pretty resolved. I'd also point out that the entire foundation of gamergate is straight out of The Paranoid Style in American Politics. It requires (as entre) acceptance of a conspiracy between journalists, indie developers and various other actors. All reasoning stems from that, so sources which don't reaffirm this specific worldview are untrusted or biased. Rather than trying to find bias you're looking at the outcome and judging intent based on that. So we're not going to satisfy claims of neutrality for this WP:FRINGE position without treating it as though its fundamental basis weren't a complete fucking mess. It's impossible. What we're going to do is try to describe the movement using the more reliable sources and summarize from that. Using those we would all try to make the most neutral possible summary, but not without granting, in the voice of the encyclopedia, the megaphone to a fringe viewpoint. If doing so makes the gamergate position seem beleaguered, cruel or dare I say sexist, then that's rough, but it's how it has to work. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The claim that GamerGate backers have legitimate concerns is not a fringe position, and it does not require the acceptance of a conspiracy, it alleges that journalistic ethics were violated. As is, the article is granting the encyclopedic megaphone to the anti-GG side of the issue. And I would point out that you have biases on your part. Skrelk (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is convenient when it's needed to make a loud stink over perceived bias by insinuating that tenuous connections represent in-group circlejerking and privilege granting and therefore disqualify sources which don't buy the line that it's just all about vidya. Protonk (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that every single source which disagrees with GamerGate is doing so because of some massive agreement among every journalist to be biased rather than the fact that a large number of people think GamerGate is attempting to intimidate women and other social critics of video games into silence is, yes, what we call a conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"Claiming that every single source which disagrees with GamerGate is doing so because of some massive agreement among every journalist to be biased". That's not what people have been saying, and you know that's not what people have been saying. If you and Tarc and TRPoD and Ryulong could stop attributing willful misinterpretations, that would be great. Willhesucceed (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's hilarious though that he linked to a Tumblr .gif, I just... Loganmac (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting to remove a template that says 'Do not remove this until the dispute is resolved' The article is clearly slanted towards one direction. Whether that's the absence of reliable sources in the other direction is to be discussed and hopefully to be resolved. That's what a NPOV dispute is. Some people don't think the article is neutral, tag it, then discussion ensues. It's also disheartening to see so many shortly closed recent discussions. I'm sure some are for good reasons, while others...not so much. Tutelary (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

When the same arguments that have long been discussed and come to a conclusion by people new to the debate (and in a case like this, where we know there's outside influences to try to change this), closing retreading discussions is acceptable. Until something new is brought to the table to point out the problem, it's wasting the time of editors to readdress. that's why there's an archive page for others to review and determine what new information they can bring. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind linking me to that consensus you mentioned in your first post under this header? Tutelary (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Just go through every single fucking archive of this article and see the same thing get rehashed every other thread by a brand new voice bitching about the same exact things as every other voice that came before. This article is beseiged by single purpose accounts seeking to push a pro-Gamergate point of view on the page by removing everything that they consider is anti-gamergate because of some conspiracy they have in their minds that everyone in the media is out to get them and that only people who are as vindictive and pro-gamergate as they are are the unbiased voices in the crowd. That's why Milo Yiannopoulos is being touted as their savior right now because he acts just like they do and wrote something that put them in a positive light and put everyone they've been attacking in a negative light.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Now I would not call my self a single purpose account, I've been here a long time and edit plain boring articles because edit wars and people fervently proclaiming they know the truth literally scare me. Now I don't proclaim to speak out for all the other quiet non-confrontational peon editors but here is my idea: I would argue the article needs a current event template as well, but that is academic at this point: why not have everyone just sit back wait a few months and then when "the dust has settled" come back to editing this article, perhaps then more neutral and nuanced sources will be available, and perhaps less single-propose accounts will be around causing edit wars? True I think everyone on both sides can agree the article is in an incomplete state now, but nothing is going to solve that but time and some ovaltine BerserkerBen (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

My larger concern here...

Trust me, I'm in no way trying to change the current broad tone of this article - however, I am seriously concerned that there is a problem with editors that are decidedly anti-GG (or definitely not proGG) trying to use this as a platform to include any negative comments about the proGG as they can under the guise that because we don't have really good unbias sourcing and the media is painting the proGG side in the negative light, we can pile up the negativity without violating policy.

If you haven't done it already, a good exercise for those editors on the non-proGG side is to read some of these Reddit and other forum threads about this article. Yes, we know there's outside influences, but when you see why they are angry about it, and read this article in light of those comments, the issues they point out are glaring. And many commentators in those thread recognize our hands our tied by WP's sourcing policy but they recognize that some of the ways we include specific elements is creating a bias against them when there are other ways - from the same set of sources - to present the same information without that same bias. Obviously there's some on these forums that decree the use of any of the sites that they are protesting (ala Polygon, RPS, Gamasutra) but there's a few that are definitely aware that what we're trying to write here is not something we can just swing to their desired version but should be able to do what is basically the same job using the same sources but without the amount of negativity that this has towards proGG. Not to change the story, but to tone down the rhetoric.

What we should be doing is making sure that if we are including opinion on this article, it is a necessarily opinion to express a point that cannot be more neutrally worded or a more neutral quote used. For example, on the issue of SJW, one could easily pull a definition that paints those that use the term in poor light, but there exists a more neutral statement that still denoted it was a dejoratory term but avoids the opininated language about the proGG side.

A thing to keep in mind - the initial week or two of events from Quinn's allegations was heated and a lot of people wrote about the topic in an emotional manner. With the main events now past and people thinking and writing about this in a more rationale manner, we should be looking to retain the existing content on the factual matters but try to swap out and/or remove highly opinated pieces that aren't really necessary to establish the context of this article. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If the reliable sources are depicting something negatively, it's not our job to write the article with a purposeful intent to cover up or minimize that negativity.

I do not read what pro-GGers think of this article any more than I seek out the opinion of anti-GGers about this article. I honestly don't care what anyone on either side thinks of it. I care what the reliable sources say, and they're pretty much unanimous. One can either believe that there is some sort of evil globe-spanning journalistic cabal conspiracy to support women who are being harassed, or one can believe that it's the honest opinion of a whole lot of people from a wide variety of backgrounds that the movement's goals are poisonous and retrograde. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be a false dichotomy North, "one can belive x or y" are not the only options. Gamergate is a complex issue and there is the ability to take a stance on one aspect and not another. Also, I don't think anyone is doubting that a lot of people have "honest opinion" about Gamergate being "poisonous", it's just that there are others who do not think so and whose opinions are not being represented in the article (and have users activley editing them out if added). Just because an opinion is in the minority does not mean it does not deserve equal representation.

I also have trouble beliving that you do not care what either side thinks of it, yet seem to show clear biased against someone who supports Gamerate by only presenting the negative view of it (which is not an imperical fact, as you yourself called it "an honest opinion").Iamaom (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between writing about an actual action that, at the larger scope, taken as negative (like the harassment issues and the doxxing), and writing on the opinion of those people that did that action beyond what other sources say. For example, there is no way we can remove the "fact" that the original harassment aspects were called misogynistic becauase a plurality of sources, all across the bias spectrum, used that terminology. But if one were to describe the entire proGG side as misogynistic now, that's not a commonly shared viewpoint and should not be included at all even if we can source a quote for that.

You should care what outside sources say, though we can't let them influence us directly. My point is that we are using the sources at our disposal in a manner that is not very encyclopedic even through it might seem like we are. We have to be clinical and that's not an approach I see being taken by others here. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, I don't think you understand identity politics very well. You can stand on a soapbox all day long and proclaim that you aren't something, but if others carrying your flag are doing that same thing... your flag is going to be seen as standing for it, whether you like it or not. There likely are a lot of well-intentioned folks in the movement. Unfortunately, their flag is covered in the muck of nonsensical and false allegations about an obscure female developer's sex life; ongoing harassment of that developer and others; third-grade-level sex jokes; continued attempts to silence dissenting voices in the gaming community; the absurd idea that journalists should have neither opinions nor any social contact with other journalists; and a strange, inexplicable fixation on the ethics of social criticism and indie games rather than the ethics of multi-billion-dollar AAA publishers with a known history of actually buying positive coverage or having writers fired for negative coverage.

As reliable sources have noted, going after a game industry news site for publishing a female writer's opinion is not doing anything to dispel the notion that "the misogynist language used by many supporters has put the movement at the center of the conversation about how women are treated in the gaming industry."

The word "GamerGate" is now permanently associated with misogyny, much as "states' rights" became permanently associated with segregationism. Which is why Zoe Quinn long ago suggested that those truly interested in issues of journalism ethics come up with another hashtag. The baggage has already attached and it's not going anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Identity politics are not Misplaced Pages's concern. Misplaced Pages's concern is being accurate. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate is identity politics, and the article is currently pretty accurate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It is true - Zoe Quinn and her compadres are all about identity politics. Given that a writer for Breitbart has gotten a syringe in the mail at this point, the idea of "guilt by association" would look pretty bad for you, no? Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, false equivalencies. One scary thing happened to poor Milo (and it's not as though Gamergate is the only, shall we say 'controversial' thing he does.) A shitton of scary things have happened to a whole lot of people who have said things gamergate doesn't approve of. This is not parity. This is not 'both sides are at fault.' There is simply no comparison, and that's why the mainstream media isn't writing articles about how much harassment gamergaters are getting. If the 'other side' were only making the kind of isolated claims of harassment that the gaters have made, it would be a very different story. But that is not what's happening. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That Gamergate is quintessentially identity politics is actually a pretty shrewd observation. On their own terms they're a movement that see's "gamers" as an oppressed group who ae being marginalized by the wrongfull promotion of the views of women or people friendly to women - absolutely identity politics, albeit a cargo-cult, fun house mirror version of it. That may even be the seed of a lede rewrite that would make even Masem happy. 18:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, reddit is a cesspool only the barest of bare steps above 4chan/b/. An encyclopedia project that is to contain topical articles that reflect what reliable sources says about that topic is not even remotely interested in a discussion board and the opinions of its denizens, any more than Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories takes stock of what the Free Republic has to say about the president's birth certificate. Such places do...not...matter. Tarc (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You just proved my point. I'm well aware that Reddit is far from any authority but I'm not looking to them as that, I'm looking at what they see and what we can improve on, and treating their concerns in as much as we can within WP is something we should be striving for, not ignoring just because Reddit is Reddit. I mean, I'm reading past the noise when I go there, but there are enough self-aware people at these forums to simply ignore those words is doing exactly what this article explains that we're painting the entire proGG as crazy, wacky people due to the actions of a few. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem - please stop attempting to appease POV pushers by attempting "balance" - it weakens the article, it doesn't actually make them happier (only a fully counterfactual article would), it's repeatedly resulted in us substituting strong sources for weak ones and it basically constitutes a futile excercise in troll feeding. Just stop. Artw (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

BS. We need to be clinical, hands-off, no investment in either side of the debate, and we are presently not. We can do a whole lot better while still being true to how the story is presented. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

And we portray the debate as the reliable sources portray it — that is, if the intent truly was to have a conversation about "journalism ethics," framing that conversation around allegations about an obscure indie developer's sex life stemming from a spurned ex-boyfriend's "strange, rambling attack" was catastrophically stupid and inappropriate, which leads inevitably to the suggestion that the actual intent was to harass and slut-shame a female developer because some people didn't like her game. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying we need to remove that. That's what the sources are saying, and until the sources changes, facts we can't ignore. We have to say that or we're not summarizing the sources. But we don't have to repeat that point over and over and over and over by using every possible anti-GG quote to support it, which is what is happening in some places on this. It's why I say its a pile-on - the point has been made, there's no need to keep rubbing it in even if there's a plethora of sources that try to do that. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We ignore them because their opinions are irrelevant. This isn't a blog. If a redditor comes here and wishes to to conform to the the norms and policies and guidelines of the project then that is great. If they come here screaming "THIS ARTICLE IS SO BAISED!!!!!!!!!!" and try to gut the quite reliably-sourced misogyny POV, then they should be run out on a rail. Tarc (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A sanctimonious call for patience and understanding and 'seeing the other side' targeted at the 'anti-gamergate' editors rather than the small army of SPAs and POV pushers? Lovely. I'll pass on reading through KiA, thanks. My blood pressure can't take it. If this is about your opposition to including the basic information that "Social Justice Warrior" is a pejorative, remember that you're the one who rejected the alternative of leaving the term out to avoid having to say something bad about the gaters. And incidentally, informing us that you're neutral and anyone pushing back against the legion of SPAs is not doesn't make either of those things true. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPA is an essay, while often cited, is not a rule. As long as an editor conforms to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, I really couldn't care less what topics they edit, as long as they can justify them. POV pushers are hard to define and have an infinite scope. I was charged as a POV pusher when I removed a BLP violation some vandal had put. Anybody can use it and we have to be cautious. That being said, there does need to be consistency in the ideals of whether to allow something to be explained, left out, criticized with sources, or some other variant. Tutelary (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a rule, but I didn't say it is. It is a problem, and one that Misplaced Pages encounters frequently, especially in internet kerfuffles like this one. Pretending that there's nothing wrong with an article's talk page being overrun by editors with few or no contributions outside a particular article and subject (especially when they are also advocating a very strong opinion of that subject in defiance of reliable sources) would make Misplaced Pages far too vulnerable to offsite canvasing. It doesn't have to be a policy to carry weight in an argument, and pointing out that it's an issue here is very relevant when one side is being called out as not being understanding enough of the other side. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Afd's are the only place where I've seen SPAs have their opinions discounted and be rubber stamped by admins, as it's at the behest of the article's staying or the article's deletion. Whether we'd want to disregard them for other things, like this, should be the nature of whether they are being disruptive or not. Whether they were authoritatively canvassed or not. We should also be natured of WP:AGF, and give them the benefit of the doubt. Also whether they're following guidelines and policies or not. But should they fake their 10 edits and spew BLP crap on this talk page, that's the end of AGF and I'm willing to propose blocks. In short, I don't think we can discount SPAs based solely on them being SPAs, let's look at what they say first. Should they say something like 'WP:CENSORSHIP means that we can qualify Zoe Quinn as a -insert derogatory term here' then disregard all you want. I'll be at your side. But if it's more like 'I really think more due weight should be focused on this source, here's why:' then no. Tutelary (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not advocated for the SPAs' 'opinions being discounted;' I'm saying that when an article is being besieged by a large number of very inexperienced editors complaining about 'bias' because the article describes the movement the way the mainstream sources do, lecturing other editors about how they should be nicer to the poor SPAs and try harder to see their side is simply not likely to lead to a more pleasant editing environment - it's hostile to editors who are trying to abide by Misplaced Pages policy, and reassures those who aren't that they are in the right. A single SPA can be managed. A number of them all loudly declaring the article 'biased!!!1' against their side can make productive editing very, very difficult (and it has). So whether it's policy or not, pointing out what's actually going on here when responding to Masem's impassioned plea for compassion for the pro-Gamergate POV pushers is entirely relevant. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thing is, the mainstream sources aren't portraying it the way the article is either - it is overly reliant on fringe views, the views of people involved like Zoe Quinn and Leigh Alexander. Indeed, a great number of sources suggest that the idea that it is centered around misogyny is simply false - the vast majority of the sources depict the harassment which has taken place not as the center of the thing but being a result of it. What we need to be doing is reporting on reality. The harassment. The censorship. The hacking. The attacks on journalists on both sides. Ect. Just because they're newbies doesn't mean that they can't tell something is wrong, and the reality is that several users here are what have been referred to as "culture warriors"; when they see people referring to them as "misogynists" and "virgins" on the talk page, it is not surprising that they get upset. The sad fact of the matter is that the hostility towards these people is very real and very much here, and many users here appear to be happy to turn a blind eye towards this misbehavior.

If you look at the DRN about this article, I've been working on categorizing sources, and the reality is that the bulk of the sources we're citing in major news sources do not appear to support the idea that it is primarily about harassment - harassment is a part of the thing, but a number of sources have noted that the focus on the idea that it is misogynistic and all about harassment is a tactic used by one side (the so-called culture warriors, SJWs, activism-central journalists, whatever you want to call them) in order to discredit the other side. Given the massive amounts of harassment which has been leveled at people trying to report on the issue, and the fact that several sites have actually changed their ethics standards as a result of this (one of the only tangible things which has actually happened as a result of all this), it seems very hard to say that the article is not putting WP:UNDUE notice on one side's point of view. Both sides have engaged in wide-scale harassment and issues with the integrity of games journalists has been something which has been brewing for many years.

We definitely need to cover the harassment, but it should be noted that it has occurred on both sides, and we really should be focusing more on facts than opinions. What happened, when, who was involved, ect. as well as the background of the players involved. The goal of Misplaced Pages is to present information to allow people to make up their own minds, not to make up their minds for them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you stop going out of your way to discredit Zoe Quinn and Leigh Alexander? And would you stop fucking saying someone's been called "virgin" when I've said time and time again that it's the self-appelation of one of the centers of this discussion rather than a pejorative name for them? And for fucks sake no one is saying that Gamergate is solely about harassment and misogyny. We're saying that it's an aspect that cannot be played down. And there is no proof that anyone from the journalist/Quinn side of things has leveled any sort of tangible harassment to the gamer/gater side of things. Your claim above that Breitbart received a syringe in the mail is unsubstantiated, particularly because Breitbart is not known for its integrity to begin with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Your claim that "both sides have engaged in wide-scale harassment" is simply not supported by the available reliable sources. No doubt this is because all the reliable sources are biased, as usual. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is beyond the pale to treat gamergate as on the doorstep of fringe material, largely due to the focus on reframing a campaign of sexism and harassment as some sterned nosed but blameless inquisition into "games journalism" that just happens to be incredibly gendered and grew out of some spurned ex saying that a woman who made an unremarkable and until then basically unremarked upon game had slept with some dudes. It strains credulity that we would want to cull sources due to or demand equal time for this viewpoint as though it were not stitched together post hoc rationalization for marginalizing critical (especially but not exclusively female) views. Protonk (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not about pulling sources or giving proGG more time, but just using more neutral statements when such are available, and cutting out some of the more negative opinions that are not essential to established points. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware that you have reverted this article, well, a lot in the past 24 hours? Several of those reverts were removals of tags and other pretty clearly unhelpful changes, but at least five were unambigous content disputes. You're simply not the person to be lecturing anyone about collegiality right now. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The last two are still under discussion so the changes shouldn't have been made in the first place. The rest weren't needed. Willhesucceed (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not how WP:3RR works. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The last two changes shouldn't have been made, so it would seem to me they don't count. The first two changes are two changes which weren't needed, anyway. He could have fielded the changes out to other people, with the same result. I wish someone had told me about this rule when there was edit warring going on over Sommers. Let's focus on more important things than of petty bureaucracy. Willhesucceed (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, that is quite simply not how 3RR works, and I'd encourage you to familiarize yourself with it if you think otherwise. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, then whoever(s) it is that warred with me over Sommers deserve(s) to be given a time-out. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

As I recall it was multiple 'someones' just because you were reverted more than once does not mean someone else broke the three revert rule. -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I must have warred back and forth with someone over an edit at least twenty times. The responsible persons should be suspended. Willhesucceed (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. If there were only two participants in the edit war you seem to remember, you were likely in violation yourself. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot of editors here that have done edit-warring like revisions too (I'm not dismissing that claim), but that's deflecting the issue. I'm looking at the fact that there is definitely a spirit of "we can put tons of blame on the proGG side because we have no sourcing to stop us presenting the other side", which is not how we write encyclopedic articles. Clinical, neutral stances, which some of these changes were not appropriate or. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

And I'm telling you that your perception that 'anti-GG' editors are out to 'get' gamergate is inaccurate, and that you should consider your own behavior on this page and how your own biases might be informing it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident in my point that this article is not as clinically hands off as it should be. Taking comments made by other major contributors clearly shows that they do not want to give any sort of positive treatment of the proGG side at all, and thus the inclusion of certain quotes or framing of certain facts is indicative of this. Again, I'm not arguing that we need to change sources, or change the overall approach and structure of this article - as it clear, this is pretty decent in terms of presenting the situation as the media gives it. But there's specific detailed choices that have been added or were added and removed that, when you tie in with the percieved attitudes towards the proGG from certain editors, tell me that there's a pile on of that dislike being pushed in the article when it does not need it. No one editing has to support proGG but we also have to realize that there are legitimized concerns here and they are people too, and perputating the intense dislike that some members of the press have taken to the entire group is not in any way helpful to this article, and why it will continue to be a target of external pressure to be changed.

Again, I implore those that think this article is fine to step back realize what is being said about it elsewhere and taking the position of a proGG that was otherwise not involved in the harassment aspects. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

What, pray tell, are we supposed to be giving a "positive treatment" to? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We can't (unless new sources come), but that does not mean that in lieu of a positive treatment we load this with negative treatment of them. Yes, we have to address the clear statements that the harassment was seen as misogynic, we have to point out that there's a large perception of the lack of creditability to anything from the GG due to the nature of the 4chan basis, etc. - that's all stuff that's unavoidable due to the high prevalance in the sources. But we do not need to repeat it any chance that a source quotes that in a different section.

Another way to put this is that by using so many quotes, even from reliable sources, it reads as an attempt to swing the reader to be 100% certain that the proGG is in the wrong. Unless other aspects are broadly condemned in sources, we should not be trying to influence the reader and instead let them come to their own decision if something is ethically right or wrong, particularly if we cannot present point/counterpoint due to lack of sourcing of one side. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

An example of my concern: the lengthy summary/quote from Amanda Marcotte that is presently under "Attacks on women". Nothing in that quote is a new viewpoint on the overall picture of this situation; we've established the attacks were not taken lightly by the gaming press, that it was misogyny-based attitudes, and etc. Completely unneeded, at least at that level of detail. --MASEM (t) 05:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident in my point that you're wrong. Have you considered the possibility that the 'members of the press' (and most outsiders) have taken an 'intense dislike' to the entire group because that is an entirely rational and reasonable position to take? I really don't care what 'a pro-GG' might think about this article. Fact is fact. We're not going to whitewash it because there are members of the movement who don't consider themselves misogynistic and want us to ignore what the movement is actually doing and just parrot what it says about itself instead.

I think it's high time you stop trying to position yourself as some kind of neutral mediator here. You flagrantly broke 3RR today - again - trying to correct the 'bias' of the editors who you are now scolding for not being sympathetic enough to the POV pushing SPAs. You're not neutral here, and your 'concern' about editors making use of reliable sources that are unfavorable to gamergate is unwarranted. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Except "members of the press" have not. The more distant people are from the games journalism establishment and the activists, the more malfeasance by the games journalism industry comes to the fore. Look at Digitimes; it is based in Taiwan, and talks about it in terms of being concerned about the continued fight between the video game press (which acts as PR for the industry) and its customers resulting in depressed sales of consoles in November and December. The Escapist has been quite friendly towards them, and we know that several journalists were very aggressively hostile towards them on the GameJournoPros mailing list for not deleting the thread about GamerGate. If you look at The Telegraph's article, it interviews Zoe Quinn... and then interviews GamerGate folks. And the two are night and day.

The Escapist ended up apologizing for their reporting on Zoe Quinn's original claims of being harassed in late 2013 because she was the only one who made the claims, provided no evidence but her word, and they had interviewed no one but her, resulting in folks harassing the people who Zoe Quinn claimed to be harassed by. They changed their policy to avoid such reporting. How many of the articles only interview Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and/or Leigh Alexander? How reliable are they, in light of that fact?

Alexander's article about the "death of gamers" has been described as involving "name calling", and it resulted in Intel pulling out of advertising for a website because they didn't want to be associated with it.

The reality is that there is a little tribe which is very upset over the idea that their members might be called out for ill behavior. It doesn't matter if it is true or not; what matters is whether or not you're in the group.

You talk about not wanting to be associated with the GamerGate folks, but let's face it - when the chips have come down, we've seen changes in ethics policies and companies pulling their ads from websites. Those are the -facts-. In fact, they're just about the only concrete things which have happened!

I'm not interested in the more esoteric theories of the GamerGaters; I'm not a part of their tribe. My concern is presenting reality here on Misplaced Pages. Not your version of it, not their version of it, reality. If it is unflattering to someone, so be it - it isn't our job to make people look bad or good, it is to present things in a neutral, impartial, even-handed manner to our audience so that they can draw their own conclusions. We don't need feminists ranting about how awful harassment is; we can show it to the audience by speaking about what actually happened. Likewise, we don't need to tell the audience about how awful censorship is - we simply need to present what has happened (the DMCA on YouTube, private pressure to pull down and suppress discussion, removal of stuff from various websites, ect.). We can talk about what has actually happened - the FBI being contacted, journalists getting syringes in the mail, advertisers pulling out, Phil Fish attacking people via social media and himself getting attacked in turn, the hacking and general offense against The Fine Young Capitalists... these are all things which have happened. They're facts. They're stuff which we can sink our teeth into.

When people want to selectively omit facts, or put opinion in the article in place of fact, that's POV pushing. I think that the situation, as it is, speaks for itself. If you feel that presenting the facts in an even-handed, neutral manner is going to make "your side" look bad, then you are not doing it right. Harassment needs to be in the article, but it needs to be all the serious harassment, not just some of it. When you've got people getting syringes in the mail and death threats driving people from their homes, that's stuff worth reporting. When you have websites getting compromised or systemic campaigns of harassment against people or groups, that's stuff worth reporting.

It is not our job here to make anyone look good or bad. It is our job here to let reality speak for itself. And indeed, that should be YOUR goal, as an individual; the neutral point of view is not just something which is good for Misplaced Pages, it is good for LIFE. If you are willing to look at everything neutrally and objectively, you'll never have to lie to yourself, and you'll always end up on the right side in the end, once you've gotten all the information you need.

All this talk about pro-gamergate and anti-gamergate stuff is ultimately a bit misguided. Our sources may be biased, but it is our job, as Misplaced Pages, to not be biased. If a source isn't giving us any facts, then what value has it? What is it adding to our world? Opinions might be noted, but when we talk about stuff, our primary goal is to present reality, not whatever any group's spin on that is, whatever that may be. If a source has major, verifiable factual errors in it, then it isn't reliable and isn't useful to us either, not for telling people what is going on.

We can present opinions, but when we're presenting facts, it is about presenting facts. We can talk about what the claims of the parties are, because that is the fact of what people are claiming. But we try not to do that to too great an extent, and we generally try to avoid mixing fact and opinion without separating them out clearly.

But what actually happened happened, or it didn't; if a source conflicts with verifiable reality, then we know that that source is wrong. When The New Yorker claims that Grayson wasn't attacked, and we have Kotaku directly addressing the attacks, and numerous other sources addressing them, and tons of posts from the time attacking Grayson, we know that The New Yorker did not fact check their article. When someone claims that Grayson wrote a review of Depression Quest, we have all sorts of evidence that no, that did not, in fact, ever happen. Reality is not subject to opinion, and if a source conflicts with reality, then it is the source that is wrong. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

tl;dr. Protonk (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Your attempts to discredit high quality sources you don't like and elevate lower quality ones you do are completely transparent. I'm not going to waste time here addressing your laundry list of 'concerns,' as they've already been addressed again and again. The piece in The New Yorker is fine. Alexander's article in Time is fine. Your 'categorization' of sources is your opinion and your opinion alone. Proclaiming yourself to be neutral doesn't make it true. You have a very clear, very strong bias, not to mention a rather uncomfortable fixation on toing the line of WP:BLP by taking jabs at women like Quinn and Alexander.

Those are the -facts-. In fact, they're just about the only concrete things which have happened! That is aside from the women who've been hounded out of their careers and the chilling effect it's having on women still in the industry who run the risk of being the next victims every time they step out of line and say something the gaters don't like. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This was meant for another of your extremely long replies to me, not this one. Oh, well. You've made multiple lengthy, rambling replies to me in the past few hours all full of the same half-truths, distortions, and irrelevant digressions. You sure do seem to be fond of the Gish Gallop. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem is exactly righ about this, and I might suggest to everyone asking him to stop that they should re-read WP:OWN#actions, as many of them have been repeatedly made here, and all of us the regulars have committed one or the other at some point - I think the only one missing from the list is that of signing our additions at the article itself. There has been way too much in particular on this talk page of "anyone that rises points I disagree with should leave the page and not come back". Even if we stick to the sources we have published by the mainstream media, we as a whole are ignoring the essence of neutrality in the way we use them - to detach ourselves and to represents the viewpoints of each side in a way as accurate as possible, not distorted through the reports made from the other side; weight should define how much content is covered for each point, not the lens we adopt to report about them.

Every time NorthBySouthBaranof repeats yet again the call for "adopting the position of the RSs that are covering it" down to using their words and conclusions as our own, you misrepresent the neutrality policy which states that we should do exactly the opposite. Following policy is not an excuse to fail NPOV - we have more than enough resources within policy to ensure that both sides are fairly represented without misinterpretation, including the call to ignore any rule that is making the article worse. We could include the opinions of those pro-GG side directly as reliable sources, as any source is reliable about their own opinions; yet only anti-GG sources are accepted on that basis, and every time some pro-GG opinion is proposed it gets fought against and ultimately removed, skewing what have been added to include only opinions from one side, which is not even how WEIGHT should be handled - there's an upper limit to what should be included from one side of the controversy, and it has not been respected.

We have thrown WP:BALANCE out of the window; there's no way a detached reader would agree our current article fairly represents what has been published in reliable sources. I honestly think a good strategy would be to ban all editors who have participated so far in the article and let the rest of the community take over it and start afresh, to rework what can be told with the available references from a new angle, cutting off the broken dynamics we have now. Diego (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject.

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Misplaced Pages policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.

The view that GamerGate has come to represent a campaign of misogynistic harassment is, far and away, the most prevalent view in reliable sources. Therefore, we present it in that due proportion. We do not need to present other views as if they have equal validity. We include a number of pro-GG opinions; if you want to loosen the sourcing requirements to allow more, then I'm quite sure we can find a lot more looser-sourced anti-GG opinions as well. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I was referring to, thanks for proving my point so clearly. Every time someone mentions neutrality you bring in those exact quotes, and my comment above explains why they don't mean what you think they mean, and how you're using WP:WEIGHT to imply that we should make the article unbalanced toward the press point of view and hide the other side in the controversy. In particular "proportion" doesn't mean "shape" - we can talk more about the press point of view, but we must do it with WP:IMPARTIAL tone, a part of NPOV that you keep ignoring every time it's brought up. That you have copied those parts of policy yet another time means that you really didn't hear what I was saying. Can you please stop copying those quotes time and time again? Diego (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"proportion" doesn't mean "shape" is a very good way to describe the problem here. It is very easy to pile on as much as the sources have, but for purposes of tone and not content, we should look to the detachment that the non-VG, non pop culture sources use, and when you look to things like the LA Times or the WA Post or the New York Times, they only descend into the overly negative to describe the initial harassment against the people. Most of the other sources - which I am not calling invalid, just emotionally charged and thus bias - use less detached language. All the major points in this article as it is are fine and in proportion, but it's the ensuing discussion that is the problem and that is something that we do have the ability to be clinical about. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth I appreciate your efforts Masem. Also, just as several have stated. I have seen a lot of NEUTRALS on Twitter saying even KnowYourMeme presents a more detached representation of events, in chronological order. It seems here for every one thing that happens, there's a shitton of new opinion pieces ready to twist it around. Like we got 3 sources calling Intel misogynyst. Don't be so guillible people, it's not a conspiracy theory, gaming journalism is a quasi monopoly, of course if it's needed, people are going to come up and defend Leigh Alexander or whoever. Just take an example, if you haven't followed GG just look this up and you'll realize for yourself. The game Kingdom Come: Deliverance, just a few days ago it reached 2 million dollars on their pledge. No SINGLE site has covered it, NOT ONE. Why you may ask, it turns out Daniel Vavra has been too outspoken of GG, yet they covered the game before GG. Examples like this there are tons, but I'm already being off-topic I guess. Loganmac (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

KnowYourMeme is not a reliable source because it is a user-created source. People can call out Intel for all they want. And the conspiracy theory is that the bulk of the gaters think that Kotaku et al are conspiring against them, and Milo posting the GamesJounroList thing is another spark they needed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Did I ever state KnowYourMeme is reliable? Loganmac (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right. But what they've done doesn't mean shit here. And stop claiming there are conspiracy theories. No one has any fucking time to review games because of all the bullshit that's going on in Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not claiming there are conspiracy theories mate Loganmac (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"Gaming journalism is a quasi monopoly... No one reviewed this game because the creator is pro-GG." Those are conspiracy theories. And I'm not your mate, buddy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Gaming media consists of very few sites, at least mainstream gaming media, Kotaku, RPS, Polygon, Gamasutra and a few others, its journalists seem to be pretty close to each other. The view that Kingdom Come was not covered by media is held by Vavra himself, and I believe I should continue your phrase with "I'm not your buddy, pal" and so forth right Loganmac (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There are many more than that, and those are just the sources we find reliable. Woodroar (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

A quarter to a third of those sources are defunct, and the rest don't cover the topic, apart from this and this. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, after having my contributions reverted on that page, I'm now officially done with Misplaced Pages, for a long while. Have at the article. I expect to return to find that gamers are the soft power arm of ISIS. I'm joking, but I'm not; this place is a mess. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Haha all it takes for that is a freelancer writing a blog on Gamasutra about that guy that compared GamerGate to ISIS and you got it Loganmac (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding more Adam

A while back there was a discussion about Using the APGNation interview to source the opinions of Adam Baldwin on the controversy. Barry (is it ok if I call you Barry?) and Logan both agreed that this was acceptable, but then everyone sort of forgot about it. The guy has a photo in this article and is recognised as a big player in the affair, may as well cite what he has to say. Here is my proposal (As you can see I am not the most prosaic of writers):

There was active discussion of these events on 4chan and Reddit, and figures like Adam Baldwin (who was the first to use the hashtag #GamerGate on Twitter) highlighted the issue to the population at large. Baldwin gained interest in the movement after watching a YouTube video on the topic, which he believed highlighted "collusion and conflicts of interest" in gaming journalism. Baldwin has also raised concerns regarding Social Justice movements in gaming, stating "Whenever I see the term social justice, I think injustice, because it’s not justice."

Can anyone else think of anything that can be gutted from this article.? Bosstopher (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should just cut his photo out of the article here then.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Would be fully in favor of that, they are serving no purpose. Artw (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any real need to depict Adam in the article; he's a major figure to gaters, perhaps, but a pretty minor one judging from how little he's mentioned in the reliable sources. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well when I filled the article with photos he was the only other "pro-gater" figure I know we had photos of.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't be citing APGNation: apparently someone asked about its use recently at Wikiproject Video Games and it was roundly rejected. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Interviews are fine for statements from the subject of the interview.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an exception in WP:RS for unreliable sources that publish interviews. What policy are you basing that statemtn on? -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You are arguing over a technicality in the letter of the policy. General practice is that interviews are reliable for noting the opinions of the interview subject.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about how interviews can be used, but it doesn't follow that interviews published in any source are usable regardless of the source's reliability. Other sourcing requirements still apply just as they do to any other type of source. That's not a 'technicality in the letter of the policy:' it is the policy. For example: no reliable, mainstream source is giving Adam here the time of day about Gamergate. Ordinarily that would mean that his opinion was not notable enough to include - that is, unless we allow ourselves to do an end-run around WP:RS by making an 'exception' for interviews published in otherwise unreliable sources. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

We probably *should* mention he originated the hashtag in the body of the article, that's relatively uncontroversial and we shouldn't have to go to a caption to see it. Since it's ended up giving the movement it's name possibly some mention of that in the lede would even be appropriate. 19:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it actually is controversial if he actually did - he was the first to us, but there are claims (however true or not) that some on the GG preped that term for him to use, making that far too much of a tenacious fact to include in the lede. It's fine in the body, and that's it. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We're going to include a conspiracy theory that a famous actor was prepped by a bunch of unemployed neckbeards (/v/'s main demographic), who slaved over the perfect catchy phrase to represent their movement, and then handed it over to him with utmost secrecy so he could use it as a hashtag? Bosstopher (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we're not going to include the conspiracy theory aspect but becuase of the iffyiness of Baldwin's connection to the hashtag, it should absolutely not be highlighted in the lead. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The Washington Post states: "Exactly who coined “#GamerGate” is up for debate. Actor Adam Baldwin claimed credit, but Quinn also tweeted screen grabs from 4chan chat logs she said show the campaign was orchestrated there." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I know this is not a reliable source https://medium.com/@cainejw/a-narrative-of-gamergate-and-examination-of-claims-of-collusion-with-4chan-5cf6c1a52a60 but since 4chan and the IRC kept public logs, you can see there was no actual planning to make him involved, GGers were just as surprised of his involvement as anyone else. It'd be hilarious if somehow you guys include that getting Baldwin was an evil ploy by 4chan. Also none of those screencaps show anything even related to #GamerGate as a hashtag before Baldwin tweeted it. And the only time Baldwin is even named in the IRC is because of Alec Baldwin which is hilarious that major publications haven't pointed out that overlook Loganmac (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You're misreading the WP source and the issue. The argument isn't that there was planning to make Baldwin involved; rather, that there was planning on 4chan to attack and harass Zoe Quinn using the hashtag. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If "Famous Actor Who Said Stuff About Gamergate" is Baldwin's only connection to the entire affair, then he probably does not need to have his image included in the article, as it makes him appear to be more of a major player than he is. If that leaves is with 2 images of one side of GG and 1 on the other, then we can live with that . It isn't the Misplaced Pages's fault that one side consists of largely faceless & anonymous voices. Tarc (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well he is also sourced as having coined the term GamerGate, but I'm not really sure if that warrants his photo place.Bosstopher (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We have enough sources mentioning Milo's involvement beyond just the Liana Kerzner piece that has way too much weight in this article. I don't see anything wrong with having Not-Alec Baldwin's photo here, though. He did give the controversy its namesake.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Baldwin coined the term, and it's particularly notable that a Hollywood actor is involved in this. And if you want more notable people, as someone else stated, Milo is the most "followed" of them all, but since you guys don't want to include the GameJournosPro thing, then I guess his picture would be pointless, since the only mention he has here is because Liana K attacked him Loganmac (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Baldwin was the first person (as best we can source) to use the term on Twitter, but there is very strong doubts if he actually coined the term. The present wording avoids going down the rabbit hole of whether this was a fabrication by the proGG side by simply just asserting the clear fact, Baldwin's use of the term and support for that side. That's all we should say about him, and thus that doesn't make it significant enough for the lead, compared to the involvement of other major players here. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 October 2014

This edit request to Gamergate controversy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add POV dispute tag. There is an ongoing POV dispute, sources differ in POV, and contrary to the claims some have made, the other side of this issue is not fringe. A POV tag is also called for, since the article was protected due to the POV dispute. Skrelk (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no legitimate dispute. single-purpose accounts count for very little in this project, especially in WP:BLP-sensitive areas. Tarc (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

What Tarc said - assorted sockpuppets, SPAs and reactivated accounts popping in to tell us we should ignore WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE to back their weird little cause is not a real dispute. Artw (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppets + SPAs are a strawman here. Looking at this page it is very clear that many active, or intermittently active editors are raising this issue. EDIT: I would also point out that neither of you are sysops, and should not have closed this requestSkrelk (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, count me amongst the active non-SPA editors who think there is a legit POV dispute over this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus." So part of me is thinking there's no way this should be added. But if a tag indicating dispute amongst editors requires consensus to be added isn't that a Catch-22 or something? Bosstopher (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I've noted my issue above which I don't really want to call a POV (as we are using the best cut of sources but just presenting too much from some of them) to separate that from the claim that we aren't "properly" covering the proGG side enough, which has been explained many many many times that the sourcing is simply not there for that. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages, The Sum of All Journalism Knowledge". Luckily for me, this helps in my machine verification project. :-) I do wonder what we're missing out by not covering the Top 10 YouTube Channel, Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged, forums interviews, and other material not written by journalists. — Dispenser 23:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Neutral, credible sources have been provided above. Skrelk (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Assuming the same four you have posted before, 3 are in the article, one cannot be used as a reliable source. As such, there's nothing actionable here. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The reliable anti-GG sources are being given WP:UNDUE weight over the the reliable neutral sources. And before you start the 'fringe' song and dance again, let me point that reliable sources(techcrunch, forbes, even Verge), clearly establish that gamergate is not fringe. I'll also point out that the sources are being given undue importance in this discussion. A factually reliable biased source can be used, but the the bias cannot be transferred into the article, which is what is happenning here. Skrelk (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If there is undue weight, the solution is not to remove reliably-sourced commentary, the solution would be to include reliably-sourced commentary from the other side. If we can't find reliably-sourced commentary on your side... that suggests that there actually isn't undue weight, and that we're simply reflecting what reliable sources say about the issue. Due weight, I remind you, is not based on the weight of Misplaced Pages editors, number of tweets or vehemence of position — it is based on a position's prevalence in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not correct, we can remove material to achieve a balance that matches the broad shape of the coverage by sources. --MASEM (t) 03:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

We could, but there is no reason to in this case, and there's certainly no consensus for doing so here. The current shape of the article does match the broad shape of coverage by mainstream reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we're getting a bit off topic RE this particular thread. I would argue though, that this discussion here in itself, has proven there is a legitimate POV dispute. Let me point out that I have not taken a side on this issue, except insofar as to say that much reporting of gamergate is cursory and inaccurate. Even so, this article does not match the broad shape, as most mainstream RS does attempt to explain both sides, rather than immediately pointing at 'ingrained' sexism issues as the article does Skrelk (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You are the only voice here who is stating that there is a lack of q neutral point of view in the article. It is not the fault of Misplaced Pages that the coverage of this topic is at this stage in history inherently biased due to the harassment doled out primarily by one side of the debate. There are people who have covered things impartially but the level of neutrality that is sought out by the "gater" side of the debate wants to completely downplay or eliminate content that speaks ill of them. Right now, the article covers both sides of the debate equally, as far as I can tell. That is, both the accusations of misogyny and harassment are given as much coverage as seeking changes in the ways that video game websites acknowledge possible conflicts of interest arising from the crowd sourced indie game scene. Much else that seems that people want to cover on this page is the alleged cover up or collusion that they assumed happened in the mailing list, which as far as I am aware has not been covered in reliable sources, or if it has they are already in use in the article right now. The main issue with the article now is the ongoing petty dispute between the expressly pro-Gamergate crowd and the established Misplaced Pages editors whom they associate with the anti-Gamergate crowd because they have been trying to inform the other party on how their contributions will not work here. That is not something the POV tag will solve.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Again with the absolutes, Ryulong. Did you not see my comment in this very section saying I agree with tagging the article? To remove all doubt, I believe this article does not comply with NPOV.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I clearly disagree that WP:NPOV is violated on this page so there is no reason, as per CIreland below, to use {{POV}} at the top of this article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, the tag is not there to document an existing consensus that the article is biased, but to inform readers that some editors consider it below our standards and may suffer frequent back-and-forth changes in its controversial content, and to alert editors that they need to discuss the problems until an agreement is reached to remove it. And definitely not all established Misplaced Pages editors agree that the article complies with NPOV. Until a rough consensus is reached that the article can't be significantly improved in terms of neutrality, the tag should remain in place, as it's standard practice in controversial articles in development. Diego (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Diego, the documentation at Template:POV and long-standing consensus is that {{POV}} may not be used for that purpose. Quoting specifically from the documentation: Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. The purpose of the tag, when used, is to attract additional editors; it is not supposed to be used to tell readers that some editors believe the article is not neutral. CIreland (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, I think you've told several people at this point that they are the only people expressing that view. Skrelk (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

CIreland, I've read the talk page of Template:POV and my post above was already reworded to account for that. The consensus for the tag is not to use it solely for warning readers, but it also doesn't dismiss that purpose as a valid one, and considers it beneficial. For readers and potential editors arriving to the article and finding it biased, here the tag would inform them that the article version is not definitive, inviting them to collaborate in making it better -which is something we want to encourage despite all the menacing language against SPAs; it certainly would be a more welcoming experience than the current combination of locked page and plain denial that it may have any problem. Diego (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

 Added POV tag. While I acknowledge the vocal opposition to the template, there was broad agreement that it was appropriate. While there may not have been a consensus to add it, this may be one situation (cf Bosstopher's comment about catch-22 above) where a lack of consensus indicates that the tag is apt. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Why did you add it? It's controversial and lacks consensus. Revert it ASAP. You have Masem, another administrator, arguing against its usage so why have you just ignored all this conversation and added it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

My opposite to the tag was based on that the main reason that POV is usually used cannot be fixed on this article (that we're not using the proper subset of sources for example), but per what Diego's pointed out, there's a valid reason to include it (for me, based on how I see there is a baising problem per above). --MASEM (t) 20:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

But yet there's so much discussion here (in this thread and above) that says why it is not applicable. The biasing exists because this topic is steeped in bias to begin with. There's no lack of neutrality in the article. It represents exactly what we can represent. It's not our fault that one side has bad PR after they began publishing someone's private phone number so she can be asked if she's the restaurant we are not to name. It's a controversial edit. It's not supported by consensus. It should not have been requested or answered.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You have made exactly one specific comment about a section of the article you think should be changed because you think it represents bias. Other than that, all you have done is cast aspersions on the motivations of other editors. Slapping it with a POV tag is seriously premature based on how few constructive comments about needed changes you have made. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a lack of neutrality - a rare case in that it is not that we're being selective to the sourcing as we are using the best cross section of reliable sources and that those sources are showcasing a lop-sided view of things that we can't change, but the choice of specific quotes or phrasing used it purposely biasing the article that, while it may represent the sentiments of the sources, is not appropriately neutral reporting that we should do. That is, as Diego's accurately pointed out, a call to use the POV tag. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There is literally no way for anyone to respond to an unsupported assertion like that other than by saying 'nuh-uh' to your 'uh-huh.' You have made claims that other editors who are 'bised' against gamergate (as opposed to your perfect, pure neutrality, of course) are taking advantage of the complete lack of reliable sources that present gamergate positively by 'piling on' negative information about gamergate, but you have done very, very little to back up this claim. Please stop pretending to know the minds of editors who have the nerve to edit this article while being 'not-proGG' and start making some suggestions. Don't tell me there's bias. Show me. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

For one, there are far too many quotes in this article at this point in time. The situation is not resolved, so these are all "reactionary" quotes, and not with the necessary hindsight. But as nearly all of them are quotes from the anti-GG commenting on the pro side, that gives the appearance this is anti-GG. Some quotes are fine, but that's what is dragging down this article in its neutrality at the present time particularly in how the misogyny section is now split up as it immediately begs the hostile aspect of the attacks. Take the entire discussion of the Social Justice Warrior - it is a term that can be used without comment but several editors wanted to require a definition, and when that definition was used, they wanted a very scathing definition (towards pro-GG side) instead of a neutral one. Add in how SPAs (which is not always a bad thing) are treated on this page and there's clearly a problem in the attitude of several editors. Further, it should be patently obvious that we can be more neutral, neither trying to write the article to gain sympathy for those that were attacked nor condemning those that were on the attack, but that's not what the article does now. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There are so many quotes because if things aren't quoted directly you have the pro-GG crowd complaining of bias and that these things weren't said. There was so much fighting over the fact that we say that the initial claims against Zoe Quinn were disproven that we had to triply source it. And attacks are inherently hostile so I don't know what the hell you expect can be fixed. And in this case, SPAs are a bad thing because the one thing they are here to fix is that the concept that the article isn't entirely skewed in their favor to say what they want it to, constantly throwing out sources that they think are biased against them because they aren't exclusively biased in their favor. To focus the article entirely on the fact that they think there's a conspiracy against them as an identity and to push games they don't like down their throats. To completely downplay or eliminate the discussion of the attacks initially and still perpetrated in the name of their movement without actively disassociating themselves from that aspect. To pester anyone that they think is critical of them as a group in whatever social media that they can. Do you know how many fucking times I've been sent Tweets (basically) saying "ur the most prolific editor to this page and ur telling us to get a life kek" because of what I've written on this talk page? There will just be new accounts with only 10 edits to them coming here day after day until the heat death of the universe whining about a bias that doesn't actually exist as far as Misplaced Pages should be concerned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Some quotes, to support the facts of this case, are necessary, and that's done fine in the first two sections. But the latter sections pull quotes just to use quotes and very few of them are "friendly" to the proGG side. We know the press has said what they did was bad, we do not need to drive that over and over with more quotes.

SPAs are not necessarily bad; many that have appeared here are not the type that are good, but that's not ruling them all out, and we are still required to treat SPAs with good faith to start. And yes, we actually should be downplay any attempt to create sympathy for those attacked (though explain how they have been affected like Quinn couch surfing is necessary), or villainize the proGG side any more than explaining that there were harassment attacks that came from that side that are considered misogynic. And you should actually see what some of these threads that they have on reddit and elsewhere about this article to know to what degree they have a few people here spelled out well, including Ryulong. Yes, there's a groupthink thing there that I have to read past, but the more thoughtful posts, combined with what I see here, show a strong bias that may be unintentional but is directing this article to be against the proGG side as much as possible, and we can do tons better than that without losing the encyclopedic information about gamergate. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no way to avoid sympathy or villainization when we are presenting what has been written on the subject.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And MSGJ, your claim that a lack of consensus for adding the tag is actually a consensus to add the tag makes no sense.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes there absolutely is a way to do it. We report on the events without personalizing it. We are required to be that clinical about it. Yes, we need to include that the reason these attacks were done was believed to be by misogynic attitudes in the gamer community, that we cannot eliminate, nor where that migogyn came from. But we do need need to keep bringing up how the attacks are seen as misogynic over and over. We have the ability to use the same source set but avoid using quotes that they have been given or opinions that have been made that are beyond the facts of the case. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

But is what you claim is an issue even happening in the article though? We have multiple voices condemning the actions of the movement as misogynist because that's the prevailing narrative. What specifically in the article needs to change?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, that's a clear point that they were near-universally seen as that, so we mention it in one sentence, perhaps with a choice partial quote or two. And that's that that is needed to establish that. But the article right now tries to expand on more and more viewpoints that consider that all repeat that the attacks were misogynic; just because it is a majority viewpoint doesn't mean you need to hammer it home that much. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And yet that seems to be a point we have to make to the pro-Gamergate SPAs that keep showing up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The general trend of those coming in new to WP/this article is they want either outright removal of the misogyny aspects or other clear facts that are unavoidable from the existing press sources (unactionable) or add more arguments from the proGG side which typically are not from reliable sources (again unactionable). I am saying that we can tone down the rhetrotic that "harassment is bad, these people are misogynic", beyond making it clear that that view was shared by a majority of the press in one place in the article. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This was going to be a reply to Masem's reply to me above but I'm not sure where to put it now without breaking Ryulong's outdent. As Ryulong said, the frequent use of direct quotes are simply a strategy to cover the article thoroughly without having to edit war over every single blessed word. They are, in effect, due to the presence of emphatically pro-gamergate editors on the page, not the reverse. The fact that a majority of quotes seem to be anti-gamergate also very likely has something to do with the fact that there are very, very few reliable sources that would not seem 'anti-gamergate,' especially not to someone in the movement. Framing them as 'reactionary' is inappropriate: you can't expect there to be a whole lot of reliable sources discussing this issue when it's no longer relevant, so nearly all reliable news sources are going to be considered 'reactionary' by some. You are quite simply wrong in your assessment of the term 'Social Justice Warrior,' but once again I'll point out that those of us who felt it was relevant to mention that the term is a pejorative offered the alternative of simply leaving it out if stating that very plain fact was too 'anti-GG.'
An SPA is not necessarily a bad thing. A squadron of them all making the same flawed arguments and completely ignoring any effort to explain WP policy and procedure absolutely is. The SPAs and POV warriors are making editing this article extremely difficult. This movement is uniquely problematic in that it involves so many conspiracy theories about 'unreliable' media: in their online echo chambers the gaters been talking about 'hit pieces' and 'clickbait' and 'collusion' for months, and they've been carrying the same flawed but endlessly reinforced articles from those echo chambers onto Misplaced Pages. They all think they're experts on journalism who are qualified to determine whether or not the freaking New Yorker of all things fact checks their articles. With so much hostility coming from that corner, with so many editors here finding themselves having the same conversations and explaining the same basic principles again and again and again with each new person who wants to toss out every source that's 'biased' or 'unreliable' (in other words, any source that they don't like) and getting nothing but WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in response, you should not be the least surprised that tempers are wearing thin. Your sanctimonious 'concerns' that we are not being sensitive enough to the SPAs and your completely spurious claims of 'antiGG bias' were simply the last straw: it's quite bad enough to be hearing these sorts of accusations of 'bias' from people who are only here on the project to whitewash this article. But you're an admin. You should know better. You didn't even have the decency to preach 'moderation' and 'understanding' to 'both sides:' you just blamed the people who have been trying to keep working on this article in the face of an extremely hostile, arrogant and dismissive brigade of pov warriors. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I just want TaraInDC to note that under a definition of SPA, s/he might be considered a SPA, considering you've only contributed to a handful of articles, although excessively and passionately, are in single digit numbers. Tutelary (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? The articles I've created are in single digit numbers, maybe - although that number is still higher than yours. Would you prefer I pad my edit count with semi-automated vandalism reversion as you do? And you can fuck right off with 'excessively,' thank you very much. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Swearing at me isn't very nice, or WP:CIVIL of you. But it's worthy to note that you did not edit from July 3 to Sept 9 where you edited the GamerGate afd, and then consistently edited primarily this talk page and the article with very few edits to other articles or pages. You mention SPAs, when it might be considered under some definition of SPA, you might be considered to be one. Though I do agree with that this article may need to be policed for its neutrality...I see a lot of stuff claimed in Misplaced Pages's voice which would need to be attributed to the source that said it. Misplaced Pages should take a disinterested POV as obliged by WP:NPOV. Tutelary (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Swearing at you is entirely warranted when you stated that I have edited less than ten different articles when I have in fact edited over 100. Meanwhile while the number of articles you've editit is higher than mine, your talkpage edits are, interestingly, almost exclusively on anti-feminist topics. So, again, fuck off. You've got no place making this sort of accusation. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the use of quotes to support facts or where the popular opinion is clear, as to avoid claims of us as editors being impartial. But once we're past the facts, and start getting into the reactions, at a point where we are still too close to the event to really establish this well, excess use of quotes when most are from the antiGG side does create the imbalance that is in this article presently.

And there has not been a "squadron" of SPAs here - compared to the AFD, what's here is completely tame. Yes, many do not have understanding of WP principles and sourcing and the like and we have to repeat the arguments over and over about why the sourcing is fine, etc. As long as there's a proGG side, we're going to have that, and it's not going to disappear. But only a few I would consider being more demanding than not, and most simply are not aware. There's also a few good ideas from them time to time. And I'm saying this as an admin, meaning that I have to step back and look at all sides of an issue and make a determination at times which way something should be taken - and it is pretty clear this article is too much written to create sympathy for those harassed and condemn those on the proGG which is extremely far from an encyclopedic article on a controversial subject. We are required to take a much stronger middle ground here. The literature does not support this position, particularly when you look to the more neutral pieces like the New Yorker, and the Washington Post. They do not simply hand wave away the concerns of the proGG side, and do not spend too much time creating sympathy for those harassed or work to balance the proGG into their articles better. We don't have to change the narrative here, nor introduce more proGG points, but just tone done the rhetoric when we are looking to the reactions from the media. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Proclaiming yourself to be neutral does not give your opinion more weight. Mentioning that you're an admin does not give more credence to your claim of neutrality. You've ignored or dismissed this every time I've said it, but you have been flagrantly edit warring to make this article more pro-gamergate. You're not neutral. That's not inherently bad, but insisting you're neutral and it's everyone who disagrees with you that's biased is not helping anything.

Any 'reactions' need to accurately represent the sources. If there are more 'reactions' that seem anti-gamergate to you than pro-gamergate, consider that this might just be an accurate representation of the sources that are available. But whether you believe you can support this claim or not, you shouldnot have gone straight to screaming 'bias!!!!' without actually trying to address the issues first. You've been very active on this page for some time: if you felt there was a problem, you could easily have said something before the article became so terribly anti-gamergate. Why didn't you mention this until after you were pressed to give constructive feedback rather than personal attacks? Why use it as ammunition to prove bias on one 'side' rather than trying to make constructive suggestions? Nobody is obligated to go on a likely fruitless hunt for more reliable pro-gamergate sources to mine for pro-gamergate quotes: if you think there are perspectives that are being overlooked, or if you feel sections are growing overlong, please make some concrete suggestions for fixing that. Informing a whole slew of editors that they're 'biased' does nothing but inflame matters by attacking, unfairly, only one subset of editors while ignoring the poor behavior of another. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Why didn't you mention this until after you were pressed to give constructive feedback rather than personal attacks? Uh, excuse me, weren't you the editor that just told me to go fuck off? I don't think you've any right to claim any personal attacks. Tutelary (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am, because you made a completely inaccurate and insulting comment about my contribution history. You may not have cursed at me, but you brought personal attacks into the conversation first. I responded in kind. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

But if there's already 5 commentators quoted as saying GamerGate is misogynistic and sucks what is actually added to the article by quoting from another source who is pretty much saying exactly the same thing? I think that's the point Masem is trying to make, and if so I agree with him. Sorry if I've misrepresented you Masem. Bosstopher (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that we have many quotes that are that blatant, or that we are using that many that all say the same thing; we are using quotes from commentators on several specific aspects of the issue. But my primary issue is more that talking about this in vague terms isn't helpful: the article is right there, and if any changes need to be made someone should start a discussion to suggest some already. Just telling us that there's bias and it has something to do with too many quotes doesn't help anyone. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

With regards to WP:DUE weight, I barely see anything that is pro-GG in any fashion. I see maybe some neutral(ish) but still biased wording that kind of implies their position, but all in all, it feels like the article is telling me that they are literally human scum and that I should not associate with them because of sexism, misogyny, and all that. The article is already representing the view of Anti-GG folk; via all those sources of course. But I don't see the Pro-GG viewpoints pretty much anywhere other than in the lead as a brief 'conflict of interest' stuff. Given that this is about the controversy in general, and even if they are the minority view, their viewpoints should be represented and given due weight. I'm not arguing--take out everything negative and make them seem as if they were heroes fighting against corrupt journalism and that Zoe Quinn is a -insert derogatory term here-! No, I'm saying that there's too much Anti-GG and not enough elaboration on exactly -what- they were mad about or their views. It should be added and appropriated with due weight. Tutelary (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT involves giving each perspective the same weight that the reliable sources do, not giving equal time to all sides of an issue. What reliable sources do you think are not being fairly represented here? There are several sections that cover gamergate's aims, like its vague complaints about 'journalistic ethics;' what reliable information do you think is being left out? Remember that we need to report what the sources say: just reading the article and saying "I don't think it says enough good things about gamergate" isn't all that helpful. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a different between "involved" (which is the word you are looking for) and "neutral". Second, in considering reaction statements, we actually limit these on articles if they are just reactions and not otherwise contributing to the factual nature of the story, not just controversies but other articles like major world events or deaths of famous people. A few, yes, to get the general sentiment across but not many. So here, yes the reactions calling the attacks misogynic has to be included as the subsequent reactions to that have triggered more events. But further reactions on that point don't need to be spelled out in detail, and certainly not to the representative proportion that is given in sources, if we are to stay neutral on the matter. Again, I'm not ignoring the newer editors that are demanding change, either; I've contributed towards the side that we cannot rejig the entire narrative to move it off the harassment aspect as some proGG would want us to do, but only in the last week has it become apparent that the ones anti-GG are perhaps too much anti-GG that they are not seeing why the proGG side are not happy with this article, even when taking into account the limits on sourcing and narrative we can do, going off comments and behaviors; and from such comments, its clear that many have an emotional involvement here which can cloud one's perception of neutrality. As a note, while you may think it makes it "more proGG", it really is instead bringing the article back to the right balance which, given that it is presently too far anti-GG, is by necessity going to be more proGG. I've not mentioned at all about adding MORE stuff too the proGG side, simply that we trim out some of the anti-GG stuff without affecting the narrative to make this a clinical treatment of the situation. To also add in comment to your WEIGHT piece above, my read of the existing sources I would guess that as a whole is about 66/33 in anti/proGG coverage (this is not by article count, but by content of articles), and so of course we can never swing this article to 50/50, but I believe that we're actually closer to 80/20 (or higher) in favor of the antiGG position and we should be able to swing it back better to 66/33 by eliminating some of the repeated points given by quotes, especially those that are singular points of view.--MASEM (t) 23:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, for pity's sake. Blaming other editors for 'bias' first and then pointing to vague changes you think need to be made to 'fix' that 'bias' is purely inflammatory. And yet you are still defending your decision to chide one 'side' and only them for being 'biased' rather than making some actual, specific, constructive suggestions. Consider that this is an article being edited by many people: what you are seeing is not some evil conspiracy to bias the article but the product of several different editors all adding information they think is interesting, relevant, or adds clarity to the topic. Blaming them all for 'bias' and accusing them of 'piling on' in a big dramatic plea for us to, of all things, go to Kotaku In Action to get a better understanding of 'the other side' is not helpful. You're still talking in generalities to 'prove' that there's 'anti-GG bias' when you should have started with the specifics before you rolled out the accusations. If you thought there was such a severe problem, you should have said something before you felt compelled to resort to writing a wikidrama in three acts about it. So enough with the vague claims already.

I don't agree re: 'involved' vs 'neutral,' by the way. You broke the 3RR over your insistence that the lede must contain open with an abysmally sourced claim that gamergate is a matter of 'consumers' vs 'the industry' (when a large majority of our sources say it's an issue in the gaming community) and your insistence that we include the term 'Social Justice Warrior' without mentioning that it's a pejorative - you've since said several times that it was just because the quotes that we were trying to use to give context to the term were 'too biased,' at the time you were telling us that defining it at all' would 'create too much bias.' You're not neutral. Again, that's not a bad thing in and of itself - very few people are neutral - the goal is to behave in a way that's as unbiased as possible. But if you keep having to tell everyone that you're neutral or unbiased, you should consider why that might be. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Re "involved vs neutral" , I'm speaking on a purely WP procedural basis. I will still contend that I've got a neutral stance on this article, though I'm involved.

But on the larger point, the only reason that I'm seeing what I'm seeing now is that something was rubbing me the wrong way about the article in combination with general talk page oddness - nothing that I could put a finger on, much less accuse anyone of any necessary wrongdoing (save for some incivility on experienced editors and the unworkable claims of IPs/new editors to this) - until about last week and seeing a pattern. Which prompted me to look towards what was being said offsite and it made it clear (and yes, this is taking into account that a good fraction of what is being said offsite is way beyond anything close to actionable here). The article may look benign now, because it takes a side that is naturally "right" (that harassment of others, particularly women, is never a good thing), but when you realize how much it stays on that side and paints the other side as wrong, that's when the problem starts. And that observation became much more clear on the discussion of if/how to define Social Justice Warrior. People are pulling quotes that may apply, but they are not the most neutral quotes that could be used. Or quotes are just being pulled to include a source. And a lot of that is on the major editors on this page. Please do not thing that I'm putting more value in SPA/IP accounts over them - I've said over and over some of the changes they want us to make are simply impossible within WP sourcing policy. But we don't flat out ignore them if they have a good suggestion as some want to do. That's why there is a broad behavior problem here too.

And right now it is not simply pointing to the article and saying exactly where a problem exists. I can point to a few quotes (done above) that are not needed, but there's just a general approach that needs to be rethought here and until there's agreement there's a problem, it's going to be hard to say what specific fixes are needed, as it might involve a restructure, or re-evaluating the viewpoints taken, or more. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The point is that people on one side of the debate did do something that is terribly wrong and that thing was carried over into all discussion of the debate itself. There's only so much that you can say that "gamergate supporters want better journalism" without pointing out that many voices feel that that was drowned out by the vitriol sent one woman's way. The article covers both stances. The fact that one stance has to be extensively quoted and cited to prove that is what that stance says is because of the other stance's insistence that they are wrong or inherently biased. You can see this below in the conversation over the use of "ingrained" in the lead paragraph. The pro-GG crowd insists something that Misplaced Pages cannot cover, so Misplaced Pages covers whatever it can using what it has at its disposal without providing any more flames for the conspiracy theorist aspects of the movement to cry foul. The POV tag on this article is still unwarranted and should be removed post-haste. I still cannot believe that the actual reason it was added was because the discussion has no consensus to add it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

While from a person to person "that people on one side of the debate did do something that is terribly wrong" is true, with lack of any criminal/court conviction, WP has to stay neutral and we cannot take that stance that it was wrong. We can say how many many people condemned the actions of a few as wrong, and seen as misogynic, adding a few quotes, because that clearly did happen, and in turn caused additional events from the proGG side, so it is part of the narrative, but we should not be judging these people either way. That's the neutrality that's needed and very hard to do to write in a detached clinical manner, but it is possible. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That is frankly bullshit. We can totaly condemn the harassment from within Gamergate because that's what the sources cited do. Saying that "Harassment is bad" is not condemning the whole movement. What the article does is repeat statements made by people who have made that connection, and that is not something that makes the article biased or non-neutral.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

We can repeat the fact that people have condemned the harassment and called it misogynic (leading to other events) but we have to write that neutrally and not adopt that as WP's stance. The problem with repeating too many statements without any way to provide counterpoint (simply because there is no reliable sourcing for the counterpoint to that) is that it makes WP look like we've adopted the stance that the harassment was wrong. There's a line here that the article in its current state has crossed that we should be staying behind instead. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

So you're literally saying that Misplaced Pages cannot say that the harassment was wrong? When is harassment ever right?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we cannot say in Misplaced Pages's voice that the harassment was wrong. We can say there was harassment, we can explain how many else felt the harassment was wrong, and we can have the reader either a priori judge that was wrong or come to understand that was wrong, but we cannot take up the basis of this article on the fact "the harassment was wrong" because there has been no official or legal condemnation despite the ethical and morally .. obviousness? of the problem. We don't prejudge suspects in crimes in the Misplaced Pages voice (but we can site others) until they're actually committed by a court of law, same thing here. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That is so fucking backwards.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not clear on where exactly we're saying, in Misplaced Pages's voice, that harassment is wrong, so maybe I'm unclear about what you think constitutes 'saying harassment is wrong.' Can you point to specific instances in the text where we are saying that? We're not saying that it's right, but we're also not pussyfooting around what happened to avoid seeming 'too negative.' We're printing some quotes about the harassment that has been going on, but there are no quotes to 'balance' that because it's going to be really, really hard to find a reputable source that will print someone saying 'harassing women is totally a great way to improve gaming journalism' unless they're writing an article about how ridiculous it is to say something like that. So I don't understand the problem here. We say it happened, because it did, and where needed we get information about it from direct quotes to avoid accusations of original research and save days of quibbling from the pro-gamergate crowd over whether 'longstanding is the same thing as 'long documented.' What specific quotes are unacceptable, and how else should we convey the information they contain?

I'm not clear on what the lack of a court case has to do with it: we couldn't outright say 'this is wrong!' even if there had been a conviction, and we don't need a conviction to repeat the kinds of information we're repeating here. We are not saying that an identifiable individual has committed a crime in absence of a conviction: we're saying what people who are writing about this issue are saying happened to the people who are being harassed. Do you think a newspaper would be prohibited from reporting on a home invasion until a suspect had been found, tried and convicted? -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that we have too many quotes saying its wrong (much of the Responses section, but there's a handful throughout the rest of the text), which while quoted properly and sourced properly, is overloading this on the presumption that the harassment was factually wrong. So we back off on the number of quotes that say harassment is wrong since we cannot add anything on the counterpoint side due to lack of anything quotable there for the reasons you cite. If it were the case that people were charged and arrested and tried for the harrassment and found guilty, then we'd certainly be in the place where we could go off at length about how the harassment was criminal and thus definitely bad and moderation of the quotes wouldn't be at issue. We're not like a newspaper which doesn't have to worry about bias as much as we do. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

NEWSFLASH: Harassment is inherently and factually wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

As a human being with morals and ethics, I 100% agree with you, but as a Misplaced Pages editor, that's not an a priori stance we can take (particularly as we are talking cyberbullying which has yet to have a rigorous law set against the types of actions that were done here.) --MASEM (t) 17:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

But we're not saying harassment is wrong. We're saying it happened and letting the reader draw their own conclusion - and shockingly a lot of them are likely going to come to the conclusion that it's not very nice. Given that this is the single most covered aspect of the issue, I don't understand how this can be considered a WP:WEIGHT problem, which frankly is the only legitimate rationale I can think of for reducing 'negative' information about gamergate. When your argument is that we can't include negative information because there's little positive information to balance it, that makes WP:WEIGHT seem even less credible. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that newer sources have definitely de-focused GG on the harassment; clearly not to the point of de-emphasizing its role in the GG narrative, but it should not be the largest issue at play here. If anything, the more recent articles are lumping the harassment along with the other tactics like the email campaign towards advertisers as part of the usual playbook of nebulous groups that they claim the GG side is. The fact this article focuses a lot on the harassment when more issues have become involved is part of the problem. We can still say it happened, we can still give a few necessary quotes that condemn it, and we can say what the GG reaction to that was (the #notyourshield stuff), and that should be enough to let the reader come to their conclusion. But with the Reactions section and a handful of quotes elsewhere, it's reiterating the same sentiments for the most part and can be trimmed down to remove the piling-up on the harassment side of the issue. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that newer sources have definitely de-focused GG on the harassment; clearly not to the point of de-emphasizing its role in the GG narrative, but it should not be the largest issue at play here. I would argue that unless you're talking about the umpteenth opinion piece from Erik Kain, you're wrong. Can you point to specific sources that have "de-focused" harassment? The most recent incident that made it out of the blogosphere and into the mainstream press was the backlash over Intel pulling ads from Gamasutra, which focused on the fact that it made it appear that Intel was supporting a harassment campaign. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The Week, The Verge. Harassment is there, but it's setting up where the situation went from there. (BTW, I would not use The Week article, it is waaaaayy biased in this situation) --MASEM (t) 17:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, clearly an article titled "Intel's awful capitulation to #gamergate's sexist thugs" is good evidence that gamergate coverage is moving beyond its birth as a misogynistic harassment campaign. If you 'wouldn't use it' then why are you citing it as a proof that we're giving undue weight to the harassment campaign? The verge piece isn't an article at all, it's an open question, so I don't see what that has to do with anything. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the article (which is very much antiGG and sees the harassment as a problem) considers the harassment as a minor part of the overall issue that they see GG as a nebulous group trying various groupthink tactics to try to get their way and have no set goal, the harassment being one of those tactics but not the major part of the situation. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I very much disagree that the article "sees harassment as a minor part of the overall issue." It doesn't treat it as 'exclusively' about harassment, but then neither does the current version of the article. If this piece represents your idea of 'more' weight being given to gamergate's nebulous 'aims' then I'd say that the article is currently giving those 'aims' too much weight. But again, why are you pointing to an article that you think isn't usable in the article to prove there's an undue weight issue? -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that even a source that is extremely antiGG has moved on past the harassment issues, while this article gives that too much attention for its ultimate role in the current narrative by including many many viewpoints from those against the harassment. The harassment happened, it was a bad thing, everyone sees that, so we can say that and what additional events it caused, and then move on to address the broader issues that have been raised in the meantime. Mind you, I'm well aware that some from RSes disbelieve that the proGG is really bringing anything to the table and that the groups involved just want to create disruption, but that's not a viewpoint we can't take either. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"Even" this source has "moved on." Right. That's great: you found a source you consider extremely anti-gamergate that does not completely ignore gamergate's vague claims. But it does not support your argument: "I think this source is biased and it doesn't treat gamergate as exclusively about harrassment: that means our article, which does not treat gamergate as being exclusively about harrassment, must be biased." The conclusion does not follow from the premise. When determining WP:WEIGHT we don't find a 'biased' source and work backwards from there, assuming that that if it covers something a little, we should cover it a lot and vice versa: we weight our article based on the sources we are actually using. You stated that "newer sources have definitely de-focused GG on the harassment:" provide some usable ones if you would like to make a case for undue weight.

There's also the fact that you're using newly published articles to justtify your claim of undue weight on an article that has been protected for days. This is a good reason to make some suggestions, but it's not a good way to retroactively justify your days-old claim of anti-Gamergate bias. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't beleive Masems weird jiggling of the sources to try and present a story with two sides has any basis in WP policy - quite the opposite in fact, per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Artw (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions ruling

I looked at the ArbCom log, and I could not find a ruling authorizing discretionary sanctions for this article. The linked ArbCom case regards BLPs. Although this article does involve living persons, I don't believe the BLP ruling was intended to be interpreted so broadly as to cover an entire article simply because living persons are discussed. At least, the ruling should not cover sections that are not directly discussing living persons.Skrelk (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It does extend only to the BLP aspects, but not anything else otherwise. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly what Masem said. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

One bit to add once unprotected

NPR on the Intel stuff. Last line is the one of interest that gives an RS that the Operation Disrespectful Nod continues to plan to do the same campaign on other sites. (This we knew but could not source appropriately.) --MASEM (t) 00:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

NPR article uses Reddit as a source, and does not refer to it as Operation Disrespectful Nod. The source could be used to state that "GamerGate supporters are continuing to organize an emailing campaign asking advertisers not to advertise on various websites they oppose', or something to that effect. But it must be worded neutrally, and not written to sound like "GamerGate supporters are continuing their harassment campaign to pull advertising from journalists they consider objectionable" Skrelk (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I would not word it as such, more like "The GG supporters have affirmed plans to continue this email campaign on other sites that have published controversial articles." We've already got sourced details on Op. DN in the article (neutrally) so this would be fine. --MASEM (t) 03:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That sounds fine Skrelk (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I prefer Skrelk's "websites they oppose" wording — it's more specific than "controversial." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"That have published content they believe to be inaccurate, or 'anti-gamer'"Skrelk (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ingrained descriptor of misogyny

This article calling misogyny 'ingrained' is clearly based on this quote:

sexism and misogyny are ingrained in video-game DNA, widely tolerated when not being openly celebrated

From this article by Rus McLaughlin on VentureBeat.

I question whether this singular affirmation means that Misplaced Pages ought to just agree with him, as if his claim is actually reliable.

What if other gaming authors disagree with this, and express that misogyny is not ingrained, not tolerated, not celebrated? Would McLaughlin's claim trump those somehow?

I find it hard to believe that such a sentiment has not been objected to with counter-publications, I think we should check for those before communicating this.

Doing a cursory search for example, I can even find a disagreeing article on the same site, also writing for "GamesBeat":

Why Gaming Culture is not inherently Misogynistic by Joe Yang.

Due to a lack of consensus on this issue, I do not think we should call misogyny an 'ingrained' factor, because if something is ingrained, I think that is like calling it an inherent trait, and clearly Yang disagrees with McLaughlin on this, and the authors hold equal weight since they publish on the same site. Due to that, I am adding this as a reference too, and discussing the controversy on this article. Ranze (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed and rehashed time and time again. Please read the talk page archives. There are lots of other sources or quotes we can use instead if you don't like that one, but the gist of it is that sexism is viewed as a longstanding problem in the industry — there are a wide variety of reliable sources describing it as such.

"Sexism in gaming is a long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable problem." -Washington Post

"Online trolls have long attacked women in the video game industry. But during #Gamergate, it's gotten so bad that two women left their homes because they feared for their own safety, and the FBI has said that it will look into the harassment of game developers." -NPR

I can find more if you want. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am the editor who introduced that word, and it was just to replace the previous "long-time misogyny" which was much worse. You may have a better idea on a better descriptor from those sources, so please propose it, as neither the old nor the new term have a consensus behind it. Diego (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I also suggest that your rebuttal article doesn't really claim that sexism isn't a problem in video games — rather, it argues that the misogyny does not stem from bad intent by gamers but from structural issues in the community.

If nothing else in this article catches your attention, it should be this: gaming culture is not inherently misogynistic. Its institutions, its structures, hierarchy, its payscales, and its distribution of power may be misogynistic, yes, but gamers themselves are not misogynistic. Their beliefs and rituals are not inherently misogynistic.

That isn't claiming that sexism isn't a problem in video gaming — in fact, it's more or less admitting that there's ingrained issues of misogyny baked into video gaming. I actually tend to agree with his point that the misogyny is primarily structural rather than purposeful... but that doesn't make it any less of a problem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

NBSB, the view that this is "longstanding " is essentially original research as no single source makes such claim. As you say, this was extensively discussed, and no reference was provided that supported wording it that way. Any part of the article can benefit from new perspectives, and consensus can change. The Venturebeat article states (in bold!) that "gaming culture is not inherently misogynistic", so if reliable sources are adopting different and opposite views, we can't state anything in Misplaced Pages voice as if its description by the media is homogeneous. We could say something like "seen by a majority of journalists as an ingrained problem", "an ingrained problem of misogyny in an otherwise not inherently misogynistic culture", or other wording along those lines. Diego (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"long-documented" and "longstanding" are effectively synonyms, Diego. Not sure why you're trying to pick such a nit, but yes, we have sources that directly describe it as a "long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable" problem. Pardon me for paraphrasing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

As you said, the full argument is laid out at the archives. I see there that you suggested a change later in the lead to "the sexist, misogynistic and trolling behavior of a vocal minority of the gamer community" that was not acted upon; we could include that improvement now through an edit request. Diego (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no shortage of sources on the relationship between misogyny and game culture. We can find a different one (or multiple) for the same claim but it's not as though that source stands alone. Protonk (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of those sources are editorials from the gaming press at issue. I don't see any neutral studies, or analyses coming to that conclusion. You can certainly say that misogyny has been present in elements of gaming culture, and that it represents a long standing point of contention, but calling it ingrained, or inherent is a bridge too far, and unsupported. Skrelk (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources from the gaming press admit that it has been an issue within the industry as a whole (in fact, most are about misogyny in games from the developer standpoint, and less from the gamer side), so that would be a completely appropriate self-describing source. I would agree that if the point was about misogyny in the gamer community and not attributing any bit to the development side, we'd want something more than gaming press to report that since that's non-impartial view. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If the lead were to be rewritten to clarify that the misogyny being referred to is is in the development side, and not the gamer/consumer side, that would make the article more neutral, but I'd question the accuracy of a statement that developers are overwhelmingly misogynstic. Skrelk (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

But that's not true either. The lead is written properly to say that the sexism and misogyny is an industry problem, placing it both on developers and consumers. In the earlier part of the industry it was clearly more on the developers side, but as with the growth of social media, the aspects of that from the consumer side has become more apparent as well. Neither side is "clear" of that charge, so ingrained is accurate. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think "inherent" is the right description. Ingrained is fine. As for sources aside from editorial comment would we like for sexism in the games industry and the culture at large: We could take something like Mia Consalvo's article in Ada (among others in the same journal). There's a much older article here also on the same subject. this is more about the industry than the consumers, but it's descriptive enough. Dmitri Williams has a more general look (and one focusing on the connections between games and social issues) here (I don't have full text but I think I read it a long time ago). etc. Protonk (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

This edit request to Gamergate controversy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Make the following change proposed by NorthBySouthBaranof (at the end of the "In a nutshell" section), as discussed in the section above:

Change the current content in the lead:

"It concerns ingrained issues of sexism and misogyny"

and

"the sexist, misogynistic and trolling elements of the gamer community"

to:

"It concerns chronic issues of sexism and misogyny"

and

"the sexist, misogynistic and trolling behavior of a vocal minority of the gamer community".

Diego (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Only if the "long-standing" terminology is restored, IMO. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, if you can provide a reference using those words. Diego (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It was removed? Trivially easy to source, as it's about the most famous fact about gaming that is known by the general public through the mainstream press. Here's Amanda Marcotte in the Daily Beast. . We could use the word "chronic" if preferred, as it means longstanding. --TS 13:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually "chronic" would make sense as it has an emphasis on "continuous" rather than "for a long time", and it is sourced (which is a huge difference). I've added it to the request. Diego (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe these changes are definitely better than what is included at present.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

These templates are for uncontroversial changes and we should be waiting for consensus before we request a change using them. I think reinstating 'long-standing' is a better solution than changing it to 'chronic,' which actually sounds rather less neutral to me. We don't have to actually plagiarize our sources to avoid original research: if the issue is 'long-documented,' then it is also 'long-standing.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Tara, the initial suggested change had consensus when I first posted it; NorthBySouthBaranof had made after a long discussion a proposal that no one opposed, and I took it as acceptable and posted it here as the resulting consensus of that now archived thread. The problem has come for expanding the initial proposal to add a part that was still under discussion, but I've removed that part and reinstated the original proposed change. Diego (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it didn't. A suggestion from the archives that was 'unopposed' but never endorsed or implemented isn't 'consensus;' the discussion simply moved on. That was not the only place where the lede was being discussed, and the conversation is referring to changes to a very different iteration. You introduced the initial wording you proposed in this section and then made the edit request before anyone else had even commented: other commenters in the discussion above were advocating for reinstating 'longstanding' or other changes. There should be no rush here, and there is no harm in waiting for a few replies before you declare 'consensus.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"Ingrained" is a much more appropriate word than chronic, as if you look back, the issues of sexism/misogyny in the past were more focused on the developers side (putting these into games) than the player's side, and the current situation can be seen to a degree as a net result of having that last so long - it's ingrained in the culture. Also in the full context of the second change, I would not change it. We know that the group that actually did the trolling was a vocal minority, but the statement is about the press' reaction and that would be to more than just that vocal minority but the ones that also got pulled into the actions. "Elements" is okay, but "subset" is better . (We don't even know if we can say "minority" since the size of GG is vague and unknown). --MASEM (t) 14:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then to summarize the argument so far:

• There's consensus to change "elements of the gamer community" to "behavior of a vocal subset of the gamer community", with no one opposing that change. The "vocal" adjective bit should be safe to use, as it's well sourced by the references (and in particular ).
• There's no consensus as to what we should change "ingrained" or if it should be kept.

As these are proposed changes to two different paragraphs, I think we should keep discussion for them separate. Diego (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Vocal is fine, "vocal minority" is sort of a laden term. "vocal subset" is a bit too clever (as it is deliberately broad yet trivially precise), but I'm ok with it over "elements", which is equally broad. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I oppose 'vocal minority' and similar minimization, as it's not well supported by sources. We have strong existing sources that portray this as a pervasive problem. They don't say that all gamers are sexist (and neither does the current version of the article) but they do point out that it is an 'ingrained' and 'long-documented' issue, and that it's pervasive and generally accepted as a serious problem in the gaming community and industry, not just a some bad apples spoiling it for everyone. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any unbiased sources that present evidence of a pervasive misogyny problem in the gamer community. The only sources that are claiming that are the outlets who's integrity is being questioned in the first place - Skrelk (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Since a source becomes ipso facto biased by asserting that there are toxic elements to game culture, I'm not surprised it doesn't get through those ever moving goalposts. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling gaming culture toxic doesn't make the source biased. If you could find a RS other than Vox, Verge, or Gawker that established the claim, then that would be fine. But Vox, Verge and Gawker have been pushing this narrative since well before GG erupted, and specialize in clickbait, getting attention. Their focus is on clicks, not unbiased journalism, and they are not an appropriate for such a contentious issue. -Skrelk (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

there's this and this just off the top of my head, or the sources I noted above in response to your comments on ingrained sexism. Or like, a hojillion other ones after a more concerted search. And let's also not convince ourselves we're awash in a sea of reliable sources asserting everything is awesome and nothing is sexist in game culture. Protonk (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A Gamasutra blog can in no way be called a reliable source, we need one OUTSIDE the gaming journalistis in contention...I.E. a sociological study, or a mainstream source that doesn't directly rely on the gaming media. The daily beast source is CLEARLY editorial, NOT reporting. That is an editorial, making assertions, with little or no evidence, it is conjecture, an editorial. Both are editorials. An editorial is not an RS. Additionally, the previously posted sources consisted of an editorial, a study that had an abstract describing tension, but not making a conclusion RE misogyny prevalence, and another study regarding the different gaming style of women. - Skrelk (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

So per the usual gater logic, you're going to reject anything that doesn't fit your personal qualifications of independency or neutrality.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not my 'person qualification'. It's the basic standard that an editorial is not evidence, or a reliable source. Skrelk (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok then Skrelk. Feel free to peruse the linked sources in the section above, as they cover basically the same area. Also it's comical to say that because some fringe theory implicates ALL of games journalism that wikipedia should kowtow to that interpretation as though it were based in reality. Protonk (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Also I'll be patiently waiting for a reliable source from outside the games industry which describes game culture as not having a problem with ingrained sexism. Protonk (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I did peruse the linked sources, and as I said they consist of editorials and studies that do not support the claim of ingrained sexism, and are only tangentially related. And, per common sense, WP:BURDEN, the consist of burden of proof, etc, we don't need a NPOV RS refuting the claim that game culture doesn't have a problem, we need one that is neutral, outside the gaming press, and is not an editorial that says it is. I'm surprised that an admin such as you doesn't understand WP:BURDEN - Skrelk (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If the game media itself explains it knows there's a problem within game media, that's a perfectly acceptable source for that point. Self-identification is rarely a problematic statement. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

With regard to the game media yes, but the game media articles/editorials cannot be used to say there is a problem in gaming culture, or in the community as whole outside the media. - Skrelk (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, not really, this qualification of sourcing is a non-problem for Misplaced Pages. The gaming media is part of the gaming industry, so they are qualified to make self-assessments about the state of it. There's no requirement that the assessment of this nature has to be completely neutral of the industry. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

They're not making a self-assessment about the gaming industry, they're making an assessment of gaming culture, and of gamers generally. If they were saying game developers and plots are misogynistic, that would be completely different. But that isn't at issue here, they're saying that gaming culture and gamers are misogynistic Skrelk (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Which they have. I've provided a range of sources that show the industry knowing the games they develop have presented misogynic ideas, and are clearly aware the problem is not limited to the gamers only. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And those sources can be used to show that misogyny has been a significant issue, perhaps even ingrained, in the game development industry. Skrelk (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And it's why the lead says "It concerns ingrained issues of sexism and misogyny in the video game industry". So there zero issue here. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And so, having accepted the ingrained sexism in game development, it's somehow impossible to accept multiple sources noting a very similar phenomenon among community members as well? Also, I understand "burden", but we're talking about an issue which grew out of online community protests over a woman making a game (which were pretty similar to protests over another woman criticising the industry for the sexism you accept is ingrained and widespread among developers). There are facts on the ground. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate did not start over 'a woman making a game'. It began when, almost simultaneously, conflicts of interest were discovered in gaming journalism, and took off when many journalism outlets published articles attacking gamers, and gaming culture, hence the term 'gamergate'. The sources do not note than the phenomenon, they do not prove it, they merely assert it. I also don't quite agree with the use of the term ingrained(widespread, yes, problematic, yes, ingrained, present to such an extent that you can't play a game without seeing it, no), and questions it's relevance, given that gamergate arose over conflicts between journalists, and gamers, not journalists and the industry. - Skrelk (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not what the sources say, that's what the popular proGG opinion wants to try to change but that's not apparently happening. All reliable sources all point to the harassment that Quinn got. You cannot argue a point different from that without invalidating all the sources that state this point. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that the evidence shows there wasn't a conflict of interest. And the choice to protest an alleged conflict of interest by launching a misogynistic and slut-shaming harassment campaign against a heretofore-obscure female indie developer has not gone unremarked in reliable sources. Third-grade-level sex jokes may have made for five minutes of lulz on a chan board, but they don't do much to rebut the opposition's contention that the movement is motivated by sexism. Choices have consequences, and in an identity movement, anything done under your flag is going to be attributed to your flag. It's the unavoidable consequence of launching a movement based almost entirely on anonymous social media postings. There's no real way to control the message, to have accountability for one's actions or to steer the narrative back in a constructive direction. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

 Administrator note sorry, after reading above I'm not sure what there is consensus to change, if anything at this time! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you have to have a qualification? Both ingrained and chronic present an opinion. How about just

"It concerns issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming industry" and that's it? Loganmac (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it has something to do with the evolution of the sentance, actually. IIRC it went something like 'pre-existing' -> 'long-standing' -> 'ingrained.' The goal, presumably, was just to make it clear in some fashion that the sexism wasn't a new issue unique to gamergate. Those aren't opinions, by the way: something can absolutely be objectively said to be ingrained or chronic.-- TaraInDC (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it is an opinion, my phrase is absolutely neutral, it is up to the reader to disagree if such issues exist or not, and that's what an encyclopedia should aim for Loganmac (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It is an objective statement, however, because we have plenty of sources before GG to show that these have been concerns since at least the 1990s (from prior discussions). I would also think that establishing that GG did not introduce sexism and misogyny but existed before, and not just in the gamer side but on the industry side as well would be a more balanced statement about the situation. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If that's what you're going for then pre-existing like TaraInDC said, or better yet "some pre-existing issues..." is the most neutral you can get, ingrained makes it sound like all of gaming has a misogynist problem. And for "long-standing" you'd have to define "long". This whole misogyny in video games started after people saw that "violence makes gamers violent" wasn't doing anything, in the 90s you had the ocassional random complaint that Lara Croft was sexist but it didn't really catch on towards the late 2000s, early 2010s, with Anita Sarkeesian, at least that's what brought the issue to mainstream coverage Loganmac (talk) 07:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

New summary source

From The Verge (which I know some are going to called bias). I don't see anything immediately new that needs to be added (the only thing that caught my eye being the DARPA/DiGRA aspect but that's a lot of buzz without any apparent impact yet, so I would keep it out for now). --MASEM (t) 17:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Cite errors

This was locked while it had two big red cite errors in the References section. The errors are keeping it in two error tracking categories. I wonder if it would possible for someone with superhuman powers to fix the errors, so that this doesn't stay in the tracking categories for the next year or so. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed (commented out the Escapist one and fixing the cite name one as needed). Nothing else touched. --MASEM (t) 17:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You are my hero, thank you. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST: change "Twitter hashtag" in lead to "hashtag" due to widespread use of hashtags outside of twitter

This edit request to Gamergate controversy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request in title, this shouldn't be controversial. - Skrelk (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Added template to plop this into a tracking category. Protonk (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. If anyone has a problem with this, it can be reverted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely sure of the rationale here - is there any indication that #GamerGate has been used as a hashtag outside of Twitter? Artw (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the rationale is the term "hashtag" is more general than twitter, or at least shouldn't just be referred to in text as a "twitter hashtag". My read is the change is purely stylistic. I would've done it but I don't like editing protected pages while I'm involved in a talk page discussion. Protonk (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Go to any Youtube video on GamerGate, most comments and the title use the hashtag, it's common sense, GGers don't stop using the hashtag on twitter, it's on Facebook, Reddit, chans,etc Loganmac (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I intended that as purely stylistic, since hashtag is very generalized now. Skrelk (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK the only hashtags being refered to in the source are twitter hashtags and not "generalized" ones, this change should be reverted. Artw (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It's still just a hashtag. Even if it's only on twitter it's just a hashtag. Protonk (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Also a few of the sources cited refer to the entire movement as #GamerGate in the title, not just the twitter aspect. Bosstopher (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The phrasing 'as a hashtag #gamergate' is a little awkward. Do we need to point out it's a hashtag? Can we just say "sometimes referred to as GamerGate or #gamergate?" We talk about its use as a hashtag, with an internal link link to the article, further down in the article anyway. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Pipelink "Steam" to "Steam (software)"

In the section Allegations against Quinn and subsequent harassment, first paragraph, first sentence: Could someone add a pipelink from "Steam" to Steam (software)? Trivialist (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Makes sense to me. Done. - Bilby (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Bloated article

The article could do with about 75% less text and opinion. Let's just stick to the facts and then link to further analysis, shall we? How do I tag an article as in need of significant revision for conciseness? Oathed (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to what content the article has too much of instead of vaguely complaining about it? As in what exact pieces of content need to be cut out instead of just saying "this is too big".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps cut out the Laurie Penny bit? She's pretty much just saying the same thing all the sources before her are saying only this time with swears. Bosstopher (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

We could cut out all the bits where we pretend GamerGate might have some kind of valid point. Being stricter about WP:UNDUE would lead to a much more compact article. We'd probably need to expand the FAQ to document everything exhaustively for when POV pushers come around complaining about bias though. Artw (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You What? Bosstopher (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I sense facetiousness.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

On whose part? Bosstopher (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. I beleive the article could be significantly streamlined in that manner. Artw (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the gamergate article is that it's hilariously overblown when compared to the actual notability of the controversy. The article has 72 sources, and there's no way it could possibly need that many to make it's point. The background section doesn't serve any purpose except to give a history of the gaming industry and the general state of affairs up to the start of gamergate. If the article needs 4 extensive paragraphs describing the state of gaming industry drama before it can get to the point, then maybe the gamergate controversy should be a small subsection in an article about that. The article as it stands basically serves as a play-by-play for the ongoing drama of the controversy, with new details being added every single time someone decides to say something about it. Most of the things that are given their own section (basically everything under the backlash and social media campaign section) deserve, at max, a couple of sentences each. Everything in the misogyny and antifeminism section should be worked into the actual article instead of given individual breakdowns and analysis. The legitimacy of gamergate's concerns section doesn't deserve more than 2 paragraphs. Quotes are used in places where paraphrasing is more appropriate, and individual words are quoted from sources, I'm assuming for emphasis, but seriously. We get the point. Everyone keeps arguing about whether or not the sources and "sides" of the controversy are given fair weight, but the content in the article right now is giving the controversy itself more weight than it deserves. Kaciemonster (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that we shouldn't write that much about it despite the fact that people have written a lot about it? I'm just going to address your issues one by one.

1. Notability was taken care of with the article passing AFD.
2. There deserves to be some sort of discussion of what led up to the "controversy".
3. That's how current events work.
4. This is debatable.
5. Same.
6. Same.
7. The issue with heavy quoting is because of the pro-gamergate SPAs who insist that we are not accurately portraying their opposition (or lying about it) so we have had to include explicit and exact statements to prove that we at Misplaced Pages are not lying.

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think they mean "notable" in the normal sense of it. As for "that's how current events work", it's horsecrap and you know it. We don't want to chronicle a blow-by-blow because that makes for a worse article--we're forced to do it for the same reason we have all the damn quotes. It's not optimal and it's not wrong to say so. Protonk (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well it's hard to tell what people mean when they're not specific. There are perhaps parts of the article that need trimming, but these calls that 75% needs to be cut out is circumspect.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You missed the entire point of what I wrote. It's notable as AN incident of sexism and journalistic integrity in gaming, not THE incident. I also didn't say that that there doesn't deserve to be any discussion on what led up to the controversy. What we don't need is 4 long paragraphs describing the history of gaming journalism, what a "gamer" is, and a handful of previous incidents of sexism in gaming. For a background section for gamergate, a description of current tensions and the state of the industry before it happened would be enough.

Yes, that's how current events work, but nobody is saying anything new. The article doesn't need a new section or paragraph every time a random journalist decides that they need to weigh in on the drama, and most of the sources don't say anything distinct enough to warrant having so many references on this article.

I understand the issue with the quoting. It sucks, I get it, and the amount of patience some of you are maintaining is impressive. Regardless, a random reader doesn't care about what debates are going on the talk page, and all they're going to see is an unreasonably long article detailing a whole lot of feelings and the events of gamergate hidden underneath somewhere. The article as it is now is a chore to read, and any reader would be better off reading any of the articles referenced to get a more concise rundown. Kaciemonster (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

We actually need to establish what the situation was as of July 2014 to understand why the accusation towards Quinn set off a series of events. This is more than just an "event" article, it about the philosophical issues that have now since arise since the initial events. --MASEM (t) 22:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The "philosophical issues" existed before gamergate ever happened. This is just another event demonstrating the preexisting problems in the gaming industry. I'll say it again, you can establish the background without going into excessive detail about the history of gaming journalism, incidents of sexism, and that people that play games call themselves gamers. As it is right now, most of the article is of interest only to a small group of people, namely the people editing it. Kaciemonster (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course they existed before Gamergate - but the reason GG blew up as a "group" and as an event was that the alignment of all these issues at the point that Quinn was accused was the perfect storm, so understanding that there have been issues in journalistic ethics, that the identity of "gamers" have been challenged, etc., provide the required background how a refuted claim about professional impropriety turned into a introspective review of the entire industry. That is the story here and why this background is necessary from an encyclopedic viewpoint. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute. We need this detailed backstory so we can repeat the gamergate narrative to our readers as though it's the truth? "An introspective review of the entire industry" my fat ass. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not such much that "big" but the point is that there has been proverbial soul searching by the game journalists and dev sides (for better or worse) in light of what they have been accused of, with some agreement there have been problems (eg that game journalism has become indistinguishable from PR from a few sources, for example). We cannot state that the claism the GG side have made are truth, but the fact that there are game dev/journos that are talking seriously on those claims is what should be included in the article, and the reason why they are talking about that as part of it. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

These are primarily mentioned in sources as examples of things GajerGate could be interested in if they were really concerned with journalistic integrity and not silencing women. Artw (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The "introspective review of the entire industry" happens every single time a woman says something about video games and gets harassed because of it. We saw the same exact thing happen with Anita Sarkeesian and Jennifer Hepler, and it even happened the first time Zoe Quinn got harassed. Even still, 4 paragraphs discussing the background of the industry in detail is ridiculous overkill. All that needs to be said is that there'd been previous incidents of sexism and harassment and questions of journalistic integrity before moving on to the first incident involving Quinn. Kaciemonster (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hang on, let's try not to get superheated in this thread too... :)

OK, here's the problem as I see it: There is a lot of rhetoric from GamerGate about what they say they are for or about. But all the action of GamerGate has been the things we talk about that are documented in reliable sources — vicious harassment campaigns based on false allegations of a conflict of interest involving Zoe Quinn and others; misogynistic and juvenile sex jokes about Zoe Quinn; a vehement belief that those who are discussing issues of gender, race or class in gaming are malevolent "social justice warriors" out to somehow destroy video games (how these people will do so is unexplained); and an effort to get advertisers to drop gaming publications that published articles they don't like.

So what can we do? It's really, really easy to say you're about something and that you oppose something. But looking from the outside in, all that is seen are the actual results of what people waving your banner have done. And those external sources are in agreement that what they have done is largely (not entirely, but largely) unconstructive. And if your response to this is "well, all those sources are biased against us," then you've articulated little more than a conspiracy theory — and you haven't done anything to show here's what we have done that is constructive and that the biased media is ignoring. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I wrote most of the background section in my epic Leeroy Jenkins edit in an attempt to get the article towards a NPOV, but I was mostly working off the material in the previous analysis section using the existing sources. Despite my intentions it is, if anything, skewed towards the anti-GamerGate perspective of this just being about male gamers angry about more women being involved or games being more about serious issues and less about high-octane thrills.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem, and it's nothing in TDAs edits, is simply that prior to the harassment of Quinn, what the proGG wants was not apparently problems before save for elements of why DQ was not received well by players (the start of using games to push political messages) and the possible corruption of the press (which really only bore out in a couple isolated incidents, Gerstmann, and Doritosgate). I'm not saying these aren't valid concern, but the conclusion that some antiGG press has arrived at: claiming that the proGG latched onto these points after the harassment of Quinn and the backlash from the press as to try to give this a legitimate reason , is not too far out of the realm of possibility. We obviously can't treat it like that, but it is because there's little to talk about from the proGG side before the Quinn harassment that may seem like it's balanced. It is because the narrative as events actually happened does not make it play out well. The only real way to fix that balance would be to remove the intro but put it into the article later, but I'm not 100% if that works. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Protection

I didn't realize this before, but did Dreadstar actually protect this article from editing for a whole year?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Dreadstar stated that full protection expires later today. Looking at the log, it appears the article is move-protected until next year i.e. it cannot be renamed without administrative approval.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

So I did misread it. It's hard to tell what the expiry is supposed to be with the UTC date (I don't know why he's set the move protection to expire though).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I was confused because someone said it on Twitter before I saw you say it here, but they were apparently talking about the previous and rapidly-shortened full-protection by Cuchullain as though it had just happened.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

New sources

Slate

Arizona State University

MCV

Forbes

Iltalehti and its translation

Verge

Willhesucceed (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The ASU piece is based on a research student's comments, so ... no. (However, if there was a peer reviewed paper down the road, I could see that). The Iltalehti piece is restating what we've got already about the Intel debate, so not really needed. I've brought up the Verge piece as mostly rehashing and nothing really new but still possible.

Slate's piece is interesting in that it's more about how GG has shown Twitter to be unbridled, and there might be something to be said that GG has exposed .. flaws? with social media-driven campaigns if there were more sources long this line but would not include presently. The MCVUK piece is good in that it expresses that there are people purposely trying to stay out of it, but I'd like to see more sources on the same line as it doesn't presently fit elsewhere. Forbes is from Kain again, and pretty much supports the opinion that there needs to be proper discussion between journalists and GGers which I think we had elsewhere so usable. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Auerbach and Kain seem to be making fairly similar points about the need to get beyond a mutually toxic atmosphere. There are probably similar sources in that vein, so I think it would merit adding material touching on that issue.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Between that and Quinn's own call for discussion at #gameethics definitely could be something, I'm just not sure where to fit it in. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The Week follows up on its previous article, particularly arguing that GamerGate's goals are incoherent — which goes along with Slate's discussion of how GamerGate can't seem to figure out what it's trying to say because it's taking place in 140 characters or less. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to note the author's properly attributed opinion in the article when protection expires.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be really careful about that Week article (having read it before) as while it has some points, it's definitely written with a stronger bias than others, though I think using it + the Kain piece on the nebulous nature of GG is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Rudeness from "the other side", source

Any way to include this? http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/twitter_is_broken_gamergate_proves_it.html

It gives a summary of

1. Leigh Alexander's rude tweets (for lack of a more extreme description)
2. Ridicules a guy comparing GG to ISIS
3. Calls out a Borderland 2 dev for saying GamerGate legitimazies child pornography (not giving names since it could be BLP violation)
4. "doxxing and torment" of pro-gg members (without going into specifics)
5. cartoonist K. Thor Jensen saying "all gamers should die"

Everyone knows "harassment" as you call it in the article has been going from "both sides", yet there wasn't any source saying it yet, I don't get why The Escapist being DDOSed wasn't included also, but if all of this is added, it could get a mention from these sources Loganmac (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What a confused article, and what a confusing request. "Adam Baldwin jacks off goats" equates to rape threats, death threats and, yes, harassment by posting child porn in what world exactly? Artw (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd advise you read the article before commenting further, Artw. There's a reason Loganmac didn't go into specifics.--ArmyLine (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The extremely vague and dubious claim at the end? Without details it's as substantial as Milo's syringes or Marine Todd. Artw (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

A little confused about what you're communicating here.--ArmyLine (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is primarily about David Auerbach not really understanding Twitter and wringing his hands at the thought of rudeness there, and the only thing that goes beyond that is extremely vague and dubious? Artw (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so what's your standard for defining what is vague and dubious then? Because if we're writing off everything sourced by screenshots, twitter posts, and first person accounts, we might as well delete the whole article.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to what role the article is to perform as a source. I'm happy to accept Slate as generally reliable, and I don't doubt the main claims in the article. On the other hand, the article seems to be a bit meandering - I'm not sure what the point is, other than "Twitter is a horrible place to have a debate" (which seems true). Is the intent to use it to source the claim that there have been negative tweets and trolling sent to both sides of the debate? In which case, is that something that needs to be said? I'm not inherently opposed to it, as the aggressive back-and-forth has been a part of the ongoing issue, but I'm not sure how this is to be used. - Bilby (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, any new reader to the subject won't know there was an actual flame war, not just from one side Loganmac (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The author doesn't even seem to be suggesting that's the case, though. If you think Alexander making a few rude comments in the face of an absolute torrent of abuse proves 'both sides are at fault' you have no sense of proportion. --TaraInDC (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I could give you pages long of proof of harassment and threats from the anti-GG side, my point here is, so far, the only reliable source stating it is this, as small as it is, it's something. Did you seriously not look into the subject you're writing about? Loganmac (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You could give it but that does not mean it can be mentioned in the article. I'm sure you can use the tweets I had made that you "archived" as evidence for your argument. Lashing out at being harassed does not equate to harassing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

A few rude comments, most of which aren't even directed at an individual, are not 'harassment.' Your source would be pretty weak for this even if it said what you believe it does, but it doesn't. You seem to be under the impression that because there are so few pro-gamergate sources available we must accept poorly sourced pro-gamergate material in the interest of 'balance.' That's just not how it works. You can't just point to some rude comments someone who has been targeted by gamergate made and say "See? Both sides do it!!!" That may work in the GG echo chamber, but it's not going to fly here. Look at the level of sourcing that we have for gamergate's harassment. Are we using primary sources? Are we using a mostly unrelated article about the phenomenon of people arguing on twitter? No. We're using many mainstream news articles that clearly and specifically describe this as a harassment campaign targeted mainly at women in the gaming industry. After all the kicking and screaming you guys put up trying to keep the word 'misogyny' out of the lede, the least you could do is hold yourselves to the same standards that you have for everyone else. -- TaraInDC (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I helped writing the lead when the article had just started and I never left the word misogyny out, try again Loganmac (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's right, you just shoved it to the very end as if it were the least important part of the debate instead of the only reason it had enough coverage to survive AFD. That's much different. Okay, quibble with one detail of my comment and completely ignore my actual points if you like, but that's not going to help you prove me wrong. -- TaraInDC (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Could we please stop toggling the POV tag?

"The neutrality of this article is *disputed*." The way I see it, there is no way to make clearer that someone is pushing an agenda through this article than to remove this tag without an agreed consensus. If the article really is neutral, then at the very least this is additional context. When this blows over things should stabilize, cooler heads will prevail, and the tag will come off. Until then, there's no harm in giving the user additional info about the current dispute.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I requested protection of the article, and readding of the template.I'd replace the template myself, but I don't want to run afoul of 3RR. Skrelk (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to forget that there was never any consensus to add the tag in the first place. In the edit request above there are so many arguments against its use that the admin who stepped in to add it explicitly states that because there is no consensus that means that there is a consensus to add the tag. There is no ongoing dispute on the neutrality of this article; just discussion after discussion begun by editors with a point of view to push constantly complaining that one side is being unfairly treated when it is an artifact of the coverage itself and any attempts to rectify this imbalance would violate the undue weight and fringe view policies and guidelines. The tag does not belong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is argying significant bias in this article who isn't also arguing that we violate WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:UNDUE and other policies to counter it. Since that's not happening they simply can't be taken seriously as arguments. Artw (talk) 06:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, Artw there is clearly a valid dispute, and the tag should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. It is not a fringe view, and RS supports that. Despite your insistence, a non-insignificant number of editors believe the article is POV. You're insistence that their must be a consensus that a dispute exists is absurd on it's face. People who are arguing that the article is POV are not all necessarily arguing that weight and undue are being violated. You're insistence that those who disagree with you cannot be taken seriously is not constructiveSkrelk (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem treats you far more seriously than they should, but I doubt they would go that far. Artw (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh look, an SPA adding it back. Artw (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh look, yet another person who thinks the article is POV Skrelk (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I still haven't seen how disclosing this dispute, regardless of the merits of either side, is causing harm to Misplaced Pages or its readership. Maybe we could expand upon that, please.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be really helpful if the folks who think this article has POV issues would stop complaining and start making some constructive suggestions and backing them up with actual sources. We can't keep the article tagged indefinitely in the absence of reasonable evidence that there is a problem. Vague handwaving about being 'clinical' and 'detached' and requests to add cherry-picked quotes from Leigh Alexander's twitter feed to prove 'both sides are guilty' aren't helping. We need to hear specific changes you think should be made and we need you to support those changes with reliable sources and relevant policy. Consensus isn't a vote: it doesn't matter how many of you insist that the article is non-neutral if you're not able to provide examples that can actually be discussed. Put up or shut up plzkthx. -TaraInDC (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Like ArmyLine said, what's wrong with having the notice there? There are clearly several users not that happy with the neutrality of it, do people against want readers to take the article as absolute fact? Also how is adding sources that state there was a flame war from both sides not helping? That's the definition of neutrality, to include all sides, with their due weight, the current weight for this is non-existant. I would edit it myself but the edit won't even last 5 seconds for it to be reverted by Ryulong Loganmac (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no issue with tagging an article as having POV issues if there is an active discussion going on about problems with the article, but that's not what's happening here: I see a few suggestions that are obvious non-starters, and a whole lot of griping. There will always be people who will insist that the article is 'biased' as long as it includes the simple and well cited fact that it is primarily about a harassment campaign. We don't slap a POV tag on an article because someone people don't like it but don't care to support their position or work on improvements.

Also how is adding sources that state there was a flame war from both sides not helping? That's the definition of neutrality, to include all sides, with their due weight, the current weight for this is non-existent. First, because that is not a 'source that states there was a flame war from both sides.' Leigh Alexander didn't act like a patient little angel while a bunch of angry jerks were conducting a massive harassment campaign. That's not the same thing. And WP:WEIGHT sometimes involves not giving any weight to some fringe positions. Your contention that Leigh Alexander was not being harassed, but just involved in a mutual 'flame war,' is an extremely fringe position - so much so in fact that even the one questionable source you've offered does not support it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There would be an actual discussion if admins weren't closing them with tumblr gifs for explanations Loganmac (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

When the fuck has that happened on this page? There are two to three admins who have been dealing with this and I cannot think of one instance where any discussion on neutrality has been shut down and flippantly dismissed them. Every discussion has been pointing out that we cannot and should not cover some of the aspects that every pro-Gamergate editor wants addressed. There is no neutrality dispute that requires the POV tag. It's just the same arguments rehashed by new people and a handful of people hanging around this page to support them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Can someone at least revert the sock puppet that added the tag back because this is getting ridiculous. The article should have been semi protected again rather than allow someone to jump in and further the dispute with an alternate account.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:WRONGVERSION. Add that it was unlocked for under an hour before it had to be locked again... --MASEM (t) 14:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why someone didn't revert him in that time. It seems odd. Also, he's probably not a sock but just some gater angry at me if this notification I received means anything. I think we need to be more on the ball about restoring the semi-protected status and removing that god damn POV tag because there is no issue with neutrality on this page, just gaters whining about not having a beneficial bias.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There was 3-4 reversions of that, that's why this was protected in an under an hour. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for ascribing a more moderate stance to you. I guess if we are going to have a permenant POV tag moving forwards despite your efforts to balance the article we should just accept that and edit accordingly. Artw (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I had no part in this edit war, nor the last one for that matter, but that tag does not belong. I used to see this all the time in the Israeli-Palestine topic area, where a point-of-view pushed by a minority of editors was rejected by consensus, yet they insisted on maintaining the tag as a badge of shame. Here's how tagging works; you tag the article, you come to the talk page to elaborate on the reason, then discussion proceeds. If consensus for altering the pov of the article is achieved, the article is fixed and the tag removed. If the discussion fails to garner consensus in a reasonable amount of time, then the matter is ended and the tag is removed. Seeing how it has been weeks upon weeks now, the "timely manner" criteria has been satisfied. Tag removal does not preclude further discussion, but the matter is no longer of a critical nature that the reader must be warned about serious problems with the article. As determined by the consensus of editors in good standing, i.e. not socks and not SPAs, there is no critical POV issue at this time. When protection expires that tag should, and will, come off. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would you say that there's a "consensus of editors in good standing" that there is no POV issue? There are roughly as many of us editors in good standing saying that the article has neutrality problems as those saying that it doesn't.

Also, why should it matter whether we're in good standing or not? Consensus also has to take into account editors "not in good standing". Diego (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You have not achieved consensus for your point-of-view, thus it fails...that's not hard to understand. The burden is on the tagging party and associates. As for SPAs, no, they do not count, otherwise I could go ring a (figurative) bell and have 2 dozen people show up here by tomorrow...hell, maybe even Ms. Quinn herself. This project doesn't work that way, though; issues of consequence are decided by actual editors, not drive-by redditors and tweeters. Tarc (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to read Misplaced Pages:Consensus again. The word "burden" does not appear in it, and "fail" only appears in the context of requiring more discussion until consensus is reached. Also, what you fail is at following WP:AGF; "drive-by redditors and tweeters" are editors too, and we only should reject their contributions if they become disruptive - not merely because they are interested in a single topic. This is so basic and core to the project that makes me wonder if you're blundering your interpretation of policy on purpose. Diego (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS says "Consensus on Misplaced Pages does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines." Stating your opinion isn't enough: if you don't back that opinion up, nobody has to listen to you, 'drive-by' or no. We could have hundreds of editors dropping in to say 'oh, yeah, this article totally needs a POV tag,' but in absence of any specific proposals there's nothing to be done, nothing to discuss, and thus no justification for tagging the article. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Diego, don't be a troll, I am quite comfortable in my understanding of project norms. You made your case, it failed to be accepted, move on. Your SPA army cannot and will not be allowed to bail you out. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it, if POV-pushers are so actively editing this article, then the neutrality of the article is an issue. I'm be under the impression the POV-pushers on both sides of this issue want to have their cake and eat it too: add their bias to the article and then trot it around as impartial confirmation of their views. Is it too much to ask that we stop arguing over whether there is an argument?--ArmyLine (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding that is why we have WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE. Artw (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Except they aren't actively editing the article. They're actively editing the talk page to complain that that their opposition's point of view is in the article too much, when that is also not the case. This talk page's archives are full of constant discussion that there's a failure of neutrality without precisely pointing out what parts of the article make it not neutral.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean, except for the numerous points where "editors in good standing" (as Tarc puts it) point to specific problems with the number and detail of quotations from the available references, comments which immediately get disputed? Diego (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request No Footnote

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The bit on the New Yorker in the attacks on women section has no footnote. Can someone put the footnote back? Bosstopher (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done This is needed to met policy. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class video game articles
• Mid-importance video game articles
• WikiProject Video games articles
• C-Class Feminism articles
• Mid-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• C-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• C-Class Internet culture articles
• Low-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles