Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:04, 25 February 2015

WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES This page is subject to discretionary sanctions; any editor who repeatedly or egregiously fails to adhere to applicable policies may be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise restricted. Note also that editors on this article are subject to a limit of one revert per 24 hours (with exceptions for vandalism or BLP violations). Violation may result in blocks without further warning. Enforcement should be requested at WP:AE.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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

Video games High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-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 Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu (0 participants) Evernight Games (0 participants) Pokémon Home (2 participants) List of Pokémon volumes (1 participant) Gameplay of Pokémon (7 participants) Lisette Titre-Montgomery (6 participants) Party royale game (3 participants) List of Minecraft characters (7 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) List of generation II Pokémon (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) Shiny Pokémon (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 (0) 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 High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Freedom of speech Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech 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.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view an answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Can I use a particular article as a source? A1: What sources can be used in Misplaced Pages is governed by our reliable sources guideline, which requires "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If you have a question about whether or not a particular source meets this policy, a good place to ask is the Reliable sources noticeboard. Q2: I found a YouTube video, a post on 4chan/Reddit/9GAG/8chan, or a blog that relates to Gamergate. Can I use it as a source in the article? A2: All sources used in the article must comply with Misplaced Pages's standards for reliable sources. Self-published sources cannot be used for biographical content on a living person. If such sources were used, then gossip, slander and libelous material may find its way into the article, which would a) tarnish the quality of Misplaced Pages's information and b) potentially open up Misplaced Pages to legal action. For further information, please read the guidelines for sources in biographies of living people. Q3: Why is Misplaced Pages preventing me from editing the article or talk page? Why is this article biased towards one party or the other? A3: Content on Misplaced Pages is required to maintain a neutral point of view as much as possible, and is based on information from reliable sources (Vox, The Wall Street Journal, etc.). The article and its talk page are under protection due to constant edit warring and addition of unsourced or unreliably sourced information prohibited by our policy on biographical content concerning living people (see WP:BLP). Q4: The "reliable sources" don't tell the full story. Why can't we use other sources? A4: Verifiability in reliable sources governs what we write. Misplaced Pages documents what the reliable sources say. If those sources are incorrect or inadequate, it is up to other reliable sources to correct this. Misplaced Pages's role is not to correct the mistakes of the world; it is to write an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable sources. In addition, this article falls under concerns relating to content on living persons. Sources that go into unverified or unsupported claims about living persons cannot be included at all. Editors should review the talk page archives here before suggesting a new source from non-mainstream sources to make sure that it hasn't been discussed previously.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Jan Rothenberger (10 October 2014). "Der Gesinnungskrieg der Gamer". Der Bund (in German). Dass sich Gegner und Befürworter auch auf Misplaced Pages bekriegten, rief mit Jimmy Wales auch den Chef der Webenzyklopädie auf den Plan. Er mahnte beide Seiten zur Ruhe. Rory Cellan-Jones (16 October 2014). "Twitter and the poisoning of online debate". BBC News. I am not going into the rights and wrongs of Gamergate here - there is what looks like a factual account of this interminable saga on Misplaced Pages, although of course there have been disputes about its objectivity. David Jenkins (20 October 2014). "2014: Video gaming's worst year ever". Metro. The Misplaced Pages entry is as good as any at explaining the basics, and shows how the whole movement is based on nothing but the ravings of a female developer's ex-boyfriend and a level of misogyny that you'd find hard to credit existing in the Middle Ages, let alone the modern day. Caitlin Dewe (29 January 2015). "Gamergate, Misplaced Pages and the limits of 'human knowledge'". The Washington Post. But in a paralyzing battle that has shaken the site's notorious bureaucracy and frustrated the very principles on which Misplaced Pages was built, pro- and anti-Gamergate editors hijacked the Misplaced Pages page on that topic — and spent months vandalizing, weaponizing and name-calling over it. "The Misplaced Pages Ouroboros". Slate (magazine). 2015-02-05. ... months of chaos, misconduct, and tendentiousness on Gamergate-related pages ...

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Draft:Gamergate controversy was copied or moved into Gamergate controversy with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Draft:Gamergate controversy was copied or moved into Gamergate controversy with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

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

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 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, 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

Sanctions enforcement

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

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

Discussion of my reverted edits

So I removed the following text

On Twitter, Sarkeesian called the episode "sickening". She wrote, "They trivialized and exploited real life abuse of women in gaming for entertainment."

Which was reverted. The reason I removed it was that the only source is the tweet itself. Nothing established it's significance. HalfHat 15:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being removed. We don't need any individual reviews of the episode. Something summarizing the general response to the show from RS would probably be better to replace it. — Strongjam (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe I reverted. While self-published sources can seldom be used in biographies of living persons, one exception is that a self-published source is a reliable source for the author's opinions. The stated rationale was that the source was Twitter, and since (a) there's no reason to think that the statement does not in fact reflect its author's views, and (b) that she holds these views is uncontroversial, there's no reason not to use the reference.

Now, we're asked to consider an entirely different rationale. The argument for significance is, presumably, that Sarkeesian is a noted expert in the area and is mentioned elsewhere in the article; her opinion is perhaps more notable and more interesting than a random writer. However, if we want to remove opinions, there are plenty of isolated minority opinions that remain in the article; Eric Kaine comes to mind. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sarkeesian, along with many others, have made countless tweets, it's a site infamous for unthoughtout blurts. A tweet from anyone per se, I don't think is significant to any topic. HalfHat 16:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

the opinion of the person upon which the character was based and whose life was "ripped from the headlines" for the show is far more relevant than many of the other tangential content included in this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not like it's an article written by them though, it's a single tweet. It barely even shows what they think of something, let alone how strongly, and how relevant to the issue. If their important find a quote from an article. HalfHat 18:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"it barely shows what they think of something"?? really? while 95% of twits are incoherent rubbish, "They trivialized and exploited real life abuse of women in gaming for entertainment."" makes it pretty damn clear what they think . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TRPoD. While it may be decided not to include that quote in the article, it's clear that this TV episode is based, in part, on her life experience. Including her perspective on whether it was fairly represented is of more significance than the view of an uninvolved viewer. Liz 18:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It might be more efficient to clarify what policy grounds leads Half to dislike the quotation. My first impression from the edit summary was WP:RS, but that’s not an objection because Sarkeesian’s own statement is a reliable source for her opinion. The question of "significance" might be WP:DUE, but as Liz says, since the episode is partly based on her experience, her own reaction seems germane. It might be argued that the entire television episode is insufficiently important to discuss here and that it's a question of WP:COATRACK, but we include several very obscure statements from much less prominent pundits above who express minority views. WP:COATRACK applies to them with even greater force, since WP:DUE requires that we remove the outlandish coats along with the others. I do think we should not imply without argument that any of Sarkeesian's statements are "unthoughtout," even in a talk page, as thats skirting WP:BLP. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I was really criticizing at all was the reputation of Twitter since it requires no editing or care to make a tweet, we are talking about a site where very respectable people get into flame wars, as mentioned in a Sixty Symbols video. Just to clarify though, my objection is two fold, 1. it's only a primary source with nothing to show mainstream sources consider it even slightly notable. 2. It's on Twitter, a sight known for glibness. HalfHat 01:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your points, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published sources states Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field and then lists some exceptions which I don't think applies in this case. Social media, while seemingly ephemeral, is treated the same as if Sarkeesian had written a blog entry on her opinion of the show. Liz 01:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Or if Sarkeesian had said this in a public speech. Lots of people say silly things, but we continue to quote people who do say interesting things. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I find the inclusion of the quote a bit shaky - her reaction hasn't been covered by any independent sources (as far as I know, slap me if I'm wrong), and it would be silly if we cited a tweet anytime we wanted to get a view in lieu of the absence of secondary sources. The only reason I see to include it is because multiple sources have mentioned that one of the episode's characters is modeled after Sarkeesian, and so a reaction from Sarkeesian seems natural and appropriate - though I'd much rather see any reactions to the episode come from reliable and independent sources. Regardless, my larger concern is with whether or not the tweet is coming from Sarkeesian herself, as is implied in the article. The Twitter account represents the Feminist Frequency organization, and while it seems apparent that Sarkessian does post tweets on the account (and if I had to toss in a bet, I'd say she posted this one too), sans confirmation there's ultimately no guarantee that any particular tweet from that Twitter account is from Sarkeesian herself. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 10:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Where will we be setting the line on what tweets are viable for use here if this is allowable? This is not a road I think we want to go down, no one will be happy as a result. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Even on simply the basis that Feminist Frequency has become a major voice in the critique of GG gaming culture, lacking any of Sarkeesians personal involvement, the analysis is appropriate to be covered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so when we have pro-GG journalists, game industry insiders, and so on who have tweets that say otherwise, their analysis on Twitter should be included too, right? We're not going to try and have it both ways, where Twitter is only acceptable when it reflects the point of view of the editors on the talk page? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This is in fact probably the biggest issue, if Tweets can be significant per se, then that directly destroys the idea that significance is based on the coverage, basically editors can just say any opinion is significant. HalfHat 16:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No, editors cannot just say any opinion is significant. If Slats Grobnick tweets an opinion about Gamergate, that's not significant; if one of the Gamergate targets, someone who just happens to be an expert on misogyny in gaming -- someone who is a Gamergate target because she is an expert on misogyny in gaming -- then, yes, her opinion is significant, and her Tweet is just as reliable for her opinion as a speech would be. This is policy: see WP:RS. If an noted expert in ethics in journalism -- the director of Harvard’s Nieman Center, say -- expressed an opinion on Gamergate, we'd cover that, too. (If Dan Marino tweets that Tom Brady’s the best quarterback of all time, that's worth covering; if Slats Grobnick says it, it's not.) MarkBernstein (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay firstly what qualifies her as an expert? I'm honestly not sure if you'd read what you are referring to, since nothing there refers to cases where opinion is expressed on something else in a self published sourced, it just says it can be usable for information about themselves. I don't see this being settled by us lot so I suggest bringing in external voices for this. HalfHat 17:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What qualifies her as an expert? She is the creator of an influential series of works on female representation in video games, in connection with which she has been widely interviewed and discussed. She has been invited to lecture on the subject at major universities: for example, NYU: . She is the recipient of the 2014 Game Developers Choice Ambassador Award. She holds an advanced degree in the area.

External Voices: this page is well watched, but of course more experienced eyes are always welcome. Just how many aspersions can we cast on a professional person’s expertise, by the way, before “'What qualifies her as an expert? She's just not.”' rises to the point of a BLP violation? Just asking for my general fund of information. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You said she is "an expert on misogyny in gaming". Her Masters related to Strong female leads in TV. None of the other stuff implies expertese. Creating an influential series of works in an area doesn't imply expertese unless the influence is on academia. Many nonexperts create influential works in various areas. I'm not sure why you'd think the other stuff makes her an expert. Note: okay by expert I mean demonstrated to be an expert looking at the definition I see that's not required. I'll redact my statement that she is not. HalfHat 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Her expertise in "misogyny in gaming" isn't germane here. This is about citing her opinion on a TV show episode that was clearly model in part on her personal experience. — Strongjam (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

So where do we draw the line? Shall we embed a bunch of tweets from Gamergate supporters as well, since the TV show models what it believes to be their experience, too? Of course not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

We draw the line where we always do. The opinions of anonymous online trolls are never reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

How about non-anonymous non-trolls, then, since you're now opening that door? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

So everything else is okay then? Clearly not. Just saying "where we always do" without specifying where that is, isn't helpful. HalfHat 09:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Since the episode depicts harassment directed against an expert in the area of Sarkeesian’s expertise, based in part on her widely-reported experiences, her response to the episode certainly seems germane, while Slats Grobnick’s might not. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

But that's just us deciding it matters, not mainstream reliable sources, none of which thought this was important. Given it was based on GG to an extent, the same argument could be made to include the opinion of any GGer. I'm sure you would agree with me that we shouldn't. HalfHat 09:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Sarkeesian, Anita (February 12, 2015). "untitled". Twitter. Retrieved February 12, 2015. Predictably this week's Law & Order SVU was sickening. They trivialized and exploited real life abuse of women in gaming for entertainment.

Anita Sarkeesian Prominence

Rather than wade in and edit a page that is clearly the result of heavy editing as it stands, I wanted to raise an issue here in the expectation that this section will simply be deleted if others do not respond to it. In the first paragraph as it stands, Anita Sarkeesian is specifically mentioned and that paragraph ends with mention of "a threat of a mass shooting at a university speaking event". Now while certainly Sarkeesian is tangentially related to the Gamergate controversy, she was subjected to harassment before Gamergate. For example, to quote her Misplaced Pages page, "in March 2014 Sarkeesian was scheduled to speak and receive an award at the 2014 Game Developers Choice Awards. The organizers later revealed that they had received an anonymous bomb threat and that San Francisco police had swept the Moscone Center hall before the event proceeded." Given that the shooting threat on 14 October 2014 was made without the Gamergate hashtag, and - both in tactics and nature - followed a pattern that preceded the controversy, should this incident really be included in the head paragraph of this article?

There are two concerns here. In the first place, certainly the controversy is most widely known as a consequence of the objectionable tactics used by people who identified themselves with the hashtag. Once you have mentioned "doxing, threats of rape, and death threats", however, is it adding to a reader's understanding of the subject to specify a particular threat, especially given that did not identify with the hashtag? (For comparison, the first paragraphs of the Misplaced Pages article on Islam do not mention terrorism, nor should they.) The other concern is that while there may be some confusion in general media about how the Gamergate controversy situates itself within the wider and ongoing controversy regarding sexism in the video game industry and misogynistic harassment, Misplaced Pages should aim to dispel that confusion rather than merely reiterating it.

My suggestion would be that Sarkeesian is adequately featured in the "Subsequent Harassment" section of this article and that she could safely be removed from the first paragraph.

I would further suggest that the contentious term "misgynistic attacks" be substituted. I would suggest "abuse, often expressed in misogynistic language". The distinction is important because "misogynistic attacks" suggests that the hatred was directed at these particular women because they were women, which is certainly not known to be the case. Sordel (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:LEDE the lede is meant to be a summary of the rest of the article. The fact that Sarkeesian is adequately featured in the rest of the article (mentioned by name 25 other times) is all the more reason to mention her in the lede. Bosstopher (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I take your point, although counting how many times her name appears in the article only goes to show how disproportionately prominent she has become in an article on which she has comparatively little direct bearing. (Sarkeesian is not mentioned in the article on Sexism in video gaming, which is her main concern, to which she is directly relevant and which as it currently stands is largely concerned with sexual harassment.) As a commentator she is likely to be a secondary actor in a number of controversies and I would compare her relevance to this article as similar to Al Sharpton's relevance to Bernhard Goetz: while Goetz is mentioned in the Sharpton and Goetz articles, he is not mentioned in the Lede to Goetz's article. While Adam Baldwin is a principal figure in Gamergate (and credited with coining the hashtag), he is not mentioned in the Lede to this article. The Lede is required to be neutral, and part of this should entail distinguishing between figures of direct relevance (as Zoe Quinn clearly is) and figures who are connected largely by association. I do not say that she should be removed from the article completely, and this is because while she is a secondary actor (and secondary target) it may well be the case that readers consult this entry due to Sarkeesian's media presence.

Sordel (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE we cover the subject in the manner that the reliable sources cover the subject. If you can show that the reliable sources do not include Sarkeesian as a significant aspect of their coverage, then there may be a discussion. However, I find that unlikely as the terrorist death threats against Sarkeesian were the incident that brought GG to the NYT and that she was the model for the "ripped from the headlines" tv show about gg, it seems that we have her relevance appropriately covered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

When looking at all the sources? No, they actually don't use her as a significant aspect of the coverage. They mention her as part of the whole when discussing the harassment aspect, but Sordel is basically right that we spend perhaps more time than we should in the lede and, given what Bosstopher notes today, perhaps even mention her less specifically. Yes, undue weight matters, and this proposal would go a ways in balancing this article out. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

They cite her as a key component of the harassment, which is the basis of the almost the entirety of the coverage of the subject. The mention the GG obsession with her as a feminist critic as the key identification is a culture war which is the basis of the rest of the coverage of the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a disconnect here, as criticism of her predates the establishment of Gamergate as a named thing. And if what you say is an accurate assessment of the Gamergate activity surrounding Sarkeesian, then the lead is inaccurate as it only notes Sarkeesian as the recipient of harassment, not as a cultural critic who has been criticized herself. So which is it? If we're going to actually start using this article to accurately talk about the movement, I'm glad you're on board and how we address Sarkeesian is a solid place to start on it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sarkeesian is among the most frequently discussed gamergate targets and also a prominent gamergate critic. It's telling that this proposal ends in a suggestion to minimize or overlook the centrality of misogyny to the attacks, and the centrality of the attacks to gamergate as described in the preponderance of the sources. The proposal being contrary to policy, it cannot be accepted..MarkBernstein (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

As NPOV is policy, this is a proposal that addresses it head on and, if we're looking to build an encyclopedia entry, must be considered and addressed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, NPOV is a policy. This suggestion however, is a flagrant attempt to violate it. I think we are done unless you wish to continue at AE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what your threat is about, nor do I see this as an attempt to violate it. It is a good faith proposal from a long-time (albeit sporadic) editor that addresses key problems with this article, and deserves to be treated as such. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

the initial comment from a goodfaith editor new to the subject matter is not necessarily the issue. However, you Thargor Orlando, as a frequent editor on the subject should be familiar enough with the sources to help that new editor understand that their perceptions are not supported by the sources, rather than to encourage the beating of the dead horse and participating in WP:TE on a topic that has been endlessly discussed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You and I continue to have a disagreement on the sources, what they say, how we're using them, and how this article has been manipulated source-wise. This is not a dead horse, this is trying to repair an article that does not conform to site policies. Discussion is how we build consensus, not trying to continually remove dissenting viewpoints from the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to come back to the question of sources, it is not the case that all first-tier discussions of Gamergate mention Anita Sarkeesian. The initial articles in The New Yorker and London Telegraph dealt with Quinn alone and were the means by which the Gamergate controversy came to wider attention. If you Google "Anita Sarkeesian Gamergate" you will find that there are no references to her until 13 October 2014, at which point Zoe Quinn had been receiving death threats for over eighteen months and the hashtag had been used well over a million times. This is despite that fact that the harassment experienced by Sarkeesian is very similar to the harassment experienced by Quinn, and was in the public domain. Although Sarkeesian was a target of people with a similar mentality (and perhaps in many cases the same people) harassment of Sarkeesian only became conflated with the Gamergate controversy after she herself drew attention to it following the Utah State University talk cancelation. The reason that this episode was so widely covered is because of the mass shooting threat, which was not associated with the hashtag. Regarding Anita Sarkeesian as a central figure of the controversy is thus not a reflection of available sources: it simply reflects the sensational nature of a (possibly) unconnected threat coupled with the fact that she is a more public figure than the original victims, who were both games developers. Sordel (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, before Sarkeesian became the target of gamergate trolls, there is little press coverage of her in relation to gamergate. We are not however writing this article at a time prior to her entanglement in the mess. since gamergate began their persistant assault upon Sarkeesian, who has nothing to do with games journalism, she has consistently been in the center of the coverage of the controversy. gamergates obsession with her as a non journalist but rather a feminist commentator on games has been one of the key items that have turned the discussion of gamergate from pure harassment to harassment as an example of culture war in games. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing you've said here has addressed what Sordel has correctly pointed out. Can you address his concern, or is it time to start looking closer at how much attention we're giving Sarkeesian in regards to this topic? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The concern that Sarkeesian wasnt mentioned before she became involved has been addressed as irrelevant. The fact that she has been widely covered in everything since gg focused their claws on her is quite obvious by reviewing the sources since then. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant on what basis? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

irrelevant on the basis that of course she was not discussed before she was involved and that we are writing the article from the perspective of now, not prior to the time she was involved. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to state what I shouldn't have to but probably should: I don't have a position on Gamergate (other than, of course, the social media harassment is unacceptable and the initial criticism of Zoe Quinn was overstated) and am only interested in the accuracy of the article. I'm not contending that there is no point in the history of Gamergate at which Anita Sarkeesian does not become a relevant subject but the inaccuracy of the article as it currently stands favours one reading of events that does not adequately represent the timeline. Saying that Sarkeesian is mentioned by all sources subsequent to a particular point is rather like saying that the Duchess of Cambridge is mentioned in a significant number of articles about childbirth after a certain date: articles about Gamergate tend to be published either in popular media or in articles representing a particular ideological standpoint. Although the sources likely to be cited therefore have no obligation to neutrality, we do. Anita Sarkeesian is clearly something of a lightning rod: people who identify with Gamergate are generally hostile to her, people who are hostile to Gamergate frequently invoke her as a standard-bearer. But to treat her as a principal target of Gamergate is contentious and non-neutral: it overlooks the fact that Gamergate would have existed and merited a page on Misplaced Pages regardless of whether she existed or not. More importantly (and I suspect that this is why some argue for her continued prominence here) if Anita Sarkeesian is regarded as a principal target of Gamergate then it supports the position that Gamergate's claims to deal with journalistic ethics are specious because Anita Sarkeesian has no bearing on that particular argument. It paints a misleading picture that a hashtag used over a million times before a stated feminist was even embroiled in the controversy is specifically anti-feminist. If someone who is more widely covered than Anita Sarkeesian (say, Paris Hilton) becomes a target of people using that hashtag then does the weight of coverage alone turn that person into someone given equal prominence in the Lede? Would there really be no value in reworking the Lede to clarify what seems (to a neutral and reasonably well-informed bystander) to be an overview that seems factually misleading?Sordel (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If reliable sources discussing Gamergate reported extensively that Paris Hilton was experiencing vicious online harassment and death threats, then of course that would be discussed in this article, Sordel. We summarize what the reliable sources say, and they say a lot linking Sarkeesian with Gamergate. Sarkeesian is not just another woman who has given birth as have billions of other women. She is the victim of vicious harassment by people who say that they are motivated by Gamergate. (I do not know if she has children which doesn't matter here). Those are the incontrovertible facts, which will continue to be reflected and summarized in this article . Cullen Let's discuss it 10:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This, again, is not entirely true. If reliable sources repeatedly linked Sarkeesian to a pro-GG position, we would not be including that in the article because it's clearly untrue. Sordel is making a very important, supported distinction that needs more attention. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a very big "if". The sources discussing the harassment of Sarkeesian are consistent, of high quality and have been thoroughly vetted. I am in complete agreement with the weight now given to Sarkeesian in the article. Cullen Let's discuss it 16:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a big if, yes, but it's also a salient one. As some sources are giving an improper value to Sarkeesian's involvement (for lack of a better description), the question remains as to how high-quality the source is if it repeats falsehoods or advances misleading claims. I don't see a lot of "high quality" sources in this article when it comes to the topic of video games independent of the Gamergate issue, which might be a reason to point more toward specialized literature when appropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to convince other editors that your theory of "improper value" is correct, and you have not done so. It seems like original research on your part to me. Consensus on this matter is clear, and I believe that it is time to move on. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to convince other editors. Telling me to "move on" is not going to assist in convincing people, and noting the problems with sources on the talk page is what we do as editors, it's not OR. If you're not convinced, tell me why instead of trying to tell me to stop. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Source discussion

Please identify where the article does not comply with site policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

As noted numerous times, we spend a lot of time on secondary issues, we give undue weight to some sources and not enough weight to other sources of information, we aren't doing a good job vetting sources, not actually describing the movement in clear terms, we have the title of the article at a POV name, we're using questionable sources, we're not doing enough proper attribution of information and claims, and so on. The article is still very broken, and the continued ownership issues we're seeing has not yet been resolved even with a bunch of topic bans. Does that scratch the surface enough to start? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

1) identify secondary issues that should be cleaned out. (note: harassment is not one of them) 2) Which sources have too much weight and why do you think so? And much of the content as I look is from some of the highest quality sources, NYTs Columbia Journalism review, PBS etc so I think we are doing a pretty good job of vetting sources 3) " not actually describing the movement in clear terms," we are actually following the sources which say that when something consists merely of a hashtag, clearly describing it as a "movement" is pretty much impossible 4) the name of the article reflects what has been covered by the reliable sources and so is not an issue 5) Where specifically are items that are not attributed? 6) Vague claims are not specifics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

1 and 2) The focus on harassment is one of them, as it is given undue weight to the actual topic of Gamergate. The continued excuse that "this is what reliable sources say" comes from the fact that we've largely excised information used in reliable sources to discuss what it's about, and misused sources by assuming they get it right. The few times we've done the right thing, such as our handling of the ArbCom/Guardian piece, is commendable, but we can and should do more. We are not required by policy to focus on one aspect because of undue and counterfactual coverage in reliable sources, we are required to use our heads a bit. This should not be construed as an elimination of any specific aspect, but more a continued attempt to get us to handle one aspect of the dispute with the proper weight and context. 3) We're not really following the sources, we're following one aspect of the sources. If we were following the sources, we'd spend the bulk of time focused on what Gamergate is described as. You've asserted that it's solely a harassment movement, and the reliable sources do not take this point of view at all. 4) As demonstrated before, this is not a factual statement. There is no room for disagreement on this, you are factually wrong on this matter. 5) A very quick skim again shows problems with the second and fourth paragraphs in history, third para in subsequent, first para in debate over ethics, and I'll just stop there for now because it's showing even more POV issues again that need work. It's definitely improved, but we have a ways to go. 6) Vague claims of my supposed "vague claims" is not something I can address and isn't helpful. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources focus almost entirely on harassment and hence the article will too. Pushing to have our article present something other than a primary focus on harassment is plainly pushing the article against WP:NPOV.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And there's a continued dispute on this for the reasons I have outlined. Taking a hardline stance does not do anything in terms of helping build consensus and bringing the article in line with our policies. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

While this is yet another example of those "disputes" it is typical in that those "disputing" are never actually able to provide any support for the premise or position by showing actual significant coverage of the topic sans harassment in reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

When I point to the sources we use and say we're not handling them correctly, that is support of the premise and position. When I note that the coverage deals with both, that is support for the premise and position. Discussion you disagree with is not tendentuous, and blanket accusations as such are not helpful. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have specific sources to discuss, fine, bring them out. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue is definitively more general. We rely on sources not to flesh out the article, but advance a narrative. Part of the problem is that the media has not covered the issue responsibly, but I'll go back to my comparison to the GMO debate, something I've spent significant time on Misplaced Pages working on. What we know about GMOs is that the scientific consensus is that they're tested and safe, but the media consensus largely tells us otherwise. Under your stance for this article, our articles on genetically modified foods should be primarily about their lack of safety and the concerns of activists. Yet, when we actually verify the information, when we use proper editorial discretion, we move forward with the scientific consensus as it reflects what's going on. The same way with Gamergate: we spend an inordinate amount of time on harassment and trying to debunk claims instead of discussing the movement and its goals. This is not to say that the harassment narrative is not part of the complete story. It deserves its own section and an appropriate amount of coverage because of its place in the broader discussion. Unfortunately, this article places that small part of the issue (a part, by the way, that has a questionable relationship to the overall movement even as anonymous internet trolls use the hashtag as a breeding ground) front and center. It treats a commonplace problem of death threats on the internet (something I provided links about in the archive) as somehow specific and unique to Gamergate and gives it significant play. We can't do original research in the article, but when we're discussing how to use sources, we need to consider why we're taking claims as standard when authorities and those "in the know" do not give them the same credence, and balance it accordingly. In other words, it requires us to be smart about how we build an article, and make sure that we're not actually putting the fringe behaviors of questionably-related trolls as the main point of the article. When I first came to this article, I hadn't even heard of Gamergate. I did the research, and you're correct that the media spends a good deal of time on the harassment narrative (it's not the majority as we continue to assert), and you're correct that the majority of sources we use here (not all of them) are talking that up. When you remove (such as the Forbes/Eric Kain pieces) or diminish (like Cathy Young) reliable sources that actually speak in detail to what's happening and actually provide proper, sourced refutations of many of the claims, how can we then turn around and call the article accurate or NPOV? We don't need to start linking to Gamergate blogs or TotalBiscuit videos to get to that point, we just need to actually handle this with care. We're not doing that right now. We're instead advancing a narrative. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, specific sources are required for any meaningful discussion. and " Part of the problem is that the media has not covered the issue responsibly, " is a non starter. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Since it's a general problem, it requires general discussion to start. I have detailed where the problems lie, so if you're looking to assist in fixing it, let's do so. And no, it's not a nonstarter to discuss how the media is failing on this topic. It's actually key to getting to the bottom of this, just like we've had to for other controversial topics with similar problems. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You have laid out general claims of where you think there are problems. those general claims have been countered as not being supported by sources or policy. Now your options are provide specifics for action or come to the conclusion that our article generally, appropriately follows the sources and policies and your general claims are unfounded. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

They have not been countered, unfortunately. They've been dismissed without supporting evidence, even still. Policy requires us to write an article from a neutral point of view. Until the article gets even close to that point, you cannot say that policy doesn't support what is being said here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, until you can specifically identify where our article is not appropriately following the reliable sources, your assertions of "NPOV" are unactionable and meaningless. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, the undue weight regarding the harassment claims as opposed to what the movement is about. The NPOV title and structure. Please read what is being directed toward you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You are flat out wrong there if you think the sources in the article, particularly the highest quality mainstream ones are not covering the subject as primarily harassment / harassment as evidence of a culture war. If I am wrong you will be able to quickly specify those sources that support your claim that they are not covering harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, the quality of these sources in this subject area are not exactly high quality. Much like how we have to be careful about how we use mainstream media sources on scientific topics, we need to really consider whether the mainstream media really understands the topic they're discussing. Just because a media outlet confirms a belief does not make that outlet correct or "high quality" in context. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no technical specifics needed to examine internet harassment or "games journalism ethics" that the mainstream sources lack. They have examined and come to their conclusion. That you dont agree with their conclusion is irrelevant. 14:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You'd think so, but the coverage is showing us otherwise. Mainstream media doesn't understand the culture within, have a history of poor reporting in the space, act as if death threats aren't sadly typical, and allow their own biases to get in the way as a result. This is all background information that should lead us to reconsidering how we handle this sensitive topic and how we judge the reliability and viability of the claims made in the so-called "high quality sources." Are you up for it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That death threats may be typical of gamer culture is irrelevant. Reliable mainstream sources have decided that death threats under the gamergate auspices directed at women in gaming (and belatedly "justified" with inane "but ethics!" ) are worthy of coverage. Just like my dog Sparks not being worthy of coverage because he is just a typical beagle, doesnt mean that the Miss P is not worthy of special focus by those who care and that because of that focus and coverage, that is what the article is about. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That death threats are typical means we need to put the article in the proper context. Why oppose that? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

When you provide SEVERAL reliable sources that say "death threat campaigns like the ones against Quinn, Wu and Sarkeesian are typical of the gaming world." we can include that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree this seems like WP:SYNTH to me. — Strongjam (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be synthesis if we included something about death threats being common in the article. That's not what I'm asking to do or saying. What we should do is contextualize how we use such claims in the article as a result of what we know about the issue, much like we do with every other topic in the project. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

much like we do with every other topic in the project, we are covering this as the reliable sources cover it. Please identify what "contextualizing" the sources do that we have not? (WP:SYN and all being that we cannot make "contextualizations" on our own.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The reliable sources cover it as a movement, but you're against that. The reliable sources cover it as an issue concerning gaming journalism and aspects of the harassment, but you're against that. Yes, we can and do contextualize sources on our own all the time. It's how we've marginalized good sources like Cathy Young and elevated misleading ones as main contributions to this article. I agree we must use reliable sources. Let's do so. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The reliable sources cover it as a harassment movement, or maybe use "movement" in scare quotes, or call it a catastrofuck, or analyse its qualities as a movement and say, nope - random anonymous trolls on the internets, or use movement as a shorthand for something for which there is no good term (see the previous grouping). To select only those from the final group is most definitely NPOV violation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how many times we need to repeat this, but the reliable sources don't do what you're claiming at all. What do you need to see so you can understand it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In the case of genetically-modified foods, there exists a substantial scientific and technical literature which Misplaced Pages can, should, and does examine and to which it accords WP:DUE attention. In the case of GamerGate, there exists no scientific or technical literature. The published sources, unfortunately, do not attach much (or, really any) credence to what you assert is true -- they report on GamerGate’s misogyny and harassment, period. Those “in the know” are the writers in the Washington Post, the New Yorker, the Boston Globe. For some reason you want to think that Eric Cain or Cathy Young or Total Biscuit know better, that you know better -- but we don’t do that: we follow the WP:DUE weight of the WP:RS reliable sources. Please stop this; it's pure WP:FLAT in search of a WP:FORUM.MarkBernstein (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, the published sources do lend great credence to what I'm saying. I know this topic has impacted you in a really significant way (the writings you link make that very clear, and I do not intend to speak out of turn by noting this), and it might be why you're perhaps letting your own point of view shade things. I have no dog in this fight outside of a neutral encyclopedia article that handles the topic responsibly. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You have been asked multiple times to provide these sources. Claiming sources exist without actually ever providing them is beyond disruptive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And multiple times, I have told you that those sources are already in the article. Please stop with the continued baseless accusations. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There are 175 sources in the article. Which ones are you speaking about? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the best solution here would be to create a list of sources which espouse alternative viewpoints that you believe have been left out or underutilized. Also it's probably not wise to make even vaguely personal comments about Mark given that he is on a final warning about making personal comments, and would not be able to respond in turn. This is a good thing given how he responded in the past, but that still doesn't mean you should do things that can be construed as abusing the situation. Bosstopher (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not a hardline stance to say that we should follow the source. The consensus has already been built and is not ambiguous. The current article, in accordance with policy, describes the known activities of Gamergate -- its campaigns of misogynist threats against women in computing. One might wish Gamergate had accomplished other things, but it has not -- or, if it has, those other accomplishments have not been widely reported by reliable sources.

You say that the name of the article is objectively wrong, yet the contrary consensus could hardly be more clear. Just a few days ago, you proposed to rename the article; four individuals supported the idea, twenty three opposed, and it was swiftly snow-closed. Yet here again, just a day or two later, we're asked to contemplate precisely the same proposal. This is not consensus building, it's open defiance of both consensus and policy, backed by WP:POINTy threats that you'll bring complaints against editors who do not conform. If there's WP:OWNership here, we know (and now the world knows: http://www.markbernstein.org/Feb15/Press.html) where it lies. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, I have not threatened to bring any complaints, sorry. The rest of this is not an accurate rant, and I don't see any need to address it further. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperative and collegial approach. What I wrote is accurate, concise, and speaks directly to the points (such as they are) you raised. I'm glad you plan to drop this subject, however, as I am confident my explanation, an TRPoD’s, represent the consensus of the sources and the consensus of Wikipedians. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/zoe-quinns-depression-quest
2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11082629/Gamergate-Misogyny-death-threats-and-a-mob-of-angry-trolls-Inside-the-dark-world-of-video-games.html

A magical and wondrous list of heterodox sources

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

Conversation above doesnt seem to be going anywhere so I've decided to collate all the heterodox reliable sources I can find for discussion, so we can discuss whether or not they have been given due weight. WIP right now, because this is a soul crushing experience and seeing the words 'published 5 month ago' on an article about gamergate really gets you down. Feel free to dispute reliable sourciness for articles linked, and add any articles to the list.Bosstopher (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Using Cathy Young: You would need to point out that it's largely opinion, and that she takes an atypical stance on what feminism. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Using Kain: There are 29 archives, and the Kain debate appears on almost all of them. Largely opinion, and it looks like many try to use Kain's opinions to insert content that is not fact. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Using cinemablend.com: Not familiar with this website. RS? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Using Bokhari: Um... He spends a lot of time calling stuff supported by the majority of the RS myths. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Using Mike Diver (vice): Hard to view him as an RS when he's going on about GameJournoPros - the conspiracy idea around that is largely discredited by most RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"We can't possibly use Mike Diver as a heterodox source to represent Gamergate! His views are heterodox, and he supports Gamergate!" What's the point of collecting sources on Gamergate if you're going to have this mentality? Of course a heterodox article written from the point of view of Gamergate is going to support Gamergate and not accuse its own group of misogyny. You don't honestly believe that Gamergate supporters are a cabal of evil misogynists hiding their motives behind fiendish trickery, do you? I hope you're not looking for a reliable "pro-Gamergate" article that for some insane reason admits to and discusses Gamergate's inherent, objective, inhuman badness. I'm sorry, but any article that sympathizes with Gamergate or feels compelled to explain their interests is not going to disparage that group with those kinds of insults! YellowSandals (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the idea of conspiracy among "GameJournoPros" is thoroughly debunked by most other RS calls his reliability into question. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Except GameJournoPros did exist and there was no "debunking". From a realistic perspective, there are a lot of benign reasons for game journalists to maintain a mailing list with each other. However, the "debunk" was simply the journalists saying that they didn't do anything wrong. The fact is, it still looked wrong to people in Gamergate and it upset them. So why, exactly, is it so crucial to see people talking about GameJournoPros, see people angry about GameJournoPros, then dismiss GameJournoPros and say, "No, Gamergate started because of misogyny. GameJournoPros is an insane conspiracy theory that has been debunked by God Himself and to question this, even in the most observational manner, is grounds to believe someone is a deranged radical with nothing intelligent to say". I mean, look, you've got these articles where people are clearly mad about ethics in game journalism just like Gamergate says. I know that "misogyny" is easier to understand and has been the most orthodox explanation for all the outrage and public statements over these past few months, but maybe, just maybe, there isn't a cute little explanation for some political controversies. Seriously, if you think some political conflict can be summed up in one world, you're being naive at best and indulgently stupid at worst. How can editors continue to see plausible explanations for an angry mob, even if it's misguided, and dismiss it as if you were the French aristocracy dismissing the peasants. Like, "Oh, they're just being misogynists. Let them eat their cake and they'll settle down tomorrow".

I'm just saying, there are probably more elaborate reasons for some of the behavior we've observed in this conflict, and you do a disservice by being dismissive of it. You can look back at the American civil war, and although you don't have to say anything positive about the ethics of slavery, you can certainly see what economic advantages it provided and note that abolishing slavery did do financial harm to the South, just like the South said it would. This is life for you. Things are not simple and people wouldn't waste this much time and energy on harassing women for its own sake. I'm not sure what hard, verifiable benefit gamers would get from being misogynist, and we're not seeing much speculation on that either beyond, "Well they want to be boys and think girls have cooties". Maybe find some articles talking about what Gamergate specifically gains from being misogynist, aside from avoiding cooties. Otherwise, this article continues as it always has, vaguely alluding to but mostly trying to refute any reason for the controversy to exist in the first place. There's honestly no value in an encyclopedia article that goes about casting demons as a primary objective. YellowSandals (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If they didn't so anything wrong, there's really no point in including it. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not Cathy Young is "atypical" is not really relevant to this. They're also not opinion pieces, but actually articles on the situation in question. Looking at the Young piece, it makes me realize we missed an Andrew Sullivan piece as well that would be good to use.

This is a good start, so thank you. There's a lot from The Escapist we're not using as well and probably should, but calling them "heterodox" may not be accurate. They're heterodox according to the POV of editors here, but not really to what is happening within the movement and in video games in general. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE we follow the views mainstream sources. not a group of internet trolls preferred version of themselves. please stop stonewalling against well established policy- this is not the place where policy will be changed, as made clear in the findings of the arbcom. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of the sources i listed are definately heterodox in approach, and some such as Bokhari even comment that they are writing outside of the journalistic mainstream. Orthodoxy isnt about "what is really happening." There's a reason I didn't call it a list of "factually incorrect sources"Bosstopher (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No one is looking to change policy. We're looking to make an NPOV encyclopedia entry. The accusations you're levying are getting tiring. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Even the best of these heterodox sources falls at the very bottom edge of the reliability of the mainstream sources. If we drop down for inclusion of the heterodox sources, we open it back up to the lower quality sources that take even a more hardline stance against gamergate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if Reason, Wapo, Slate and (arguably) TechCrunch fall into the "bottom edge of reliability." However heterodox articles from all three publications have been cited, so perhaps they've already been given due coverage. Based on what I've looked at so far here are my initial thoughts: we have quite a few interviews with pro-GG people in articles, this would be useful to outline how gators themselves posit their views. Because as it stands we're knocking arguments down without stating what the arguments are in the first place. Also amongst the heterodox sources, the two main focuses that have been neglected in the article are their thoughts on the "Gamers are dead" articles, the divide between journalists and readers, and positive thoughts on TFYC (which would perhaps be better placed in the TFYC article). Also if such a focus were added I think it would be a good idea to add these lower quality "hardline" anti-GG sources you're referring to, so that GG's arguments arent given a free ride in the article.Bosstopher (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If the entry is opened to "heterodox" sources, then there are many more of those kinds of sources that are very critical of Gamergate that haven't been included. This would open the floodgates to all kinds of additions that aren't reliably sourced. This would turn the entry into a platform for every minority opinion about GG. If people think this entry is big now, it'll balloon if we lower the bar on the quality of sources. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

As a general response to a lot of the comments User:Thargor Orlando has been making: You argue that the sources cited for this article should not have been utilized because factually inaccurate, comparing it to coverage of GMOs. But unlike with GMOs academic coverage is sparse, and you have yet to point out a situation in which a claim made in the article clashes with academic consensus. You've brought up our handling of Arbitration gate as an example of what we should be (but are not) doing in the rest of the article, but there are a lot of cases where we have left out factually inaccurate information mentioned in sources. For instance there are a lot of reliable sources from early on in the controversy that claim (Redacted), perhaps more than the number of later sources clarifying that this isn't true. Yet this factual inaccuracy is not included in the article, simply because it's known to not be true. Is there anything that is completely factually wrong in the article which you believe needs remedying, or anything which you believe clashes with academic consensus?Bosstopher (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think your interpretation is entirely accurate, but it's done in good faith and I won't quibble. The amount of Sarkeesian coverage, the amount of time we spend supposedly debunking claims, the primary activity of looking at this solely through the lens of harassment, those are all factual problems that we should deal with. This is too often interpreted as "don't talk about X," and that's not my intention. But if someone with no knowledge of this topic was sent here, they would come away with a very different idea of what the topic is about than, well, what the topic is about. When we use lower quality sources (defining as such as sources without solid knowledge of the games industry or games journalism, and/or sources that peddle misleading claims), that's going to be the end result. Plus, the fact that most of this article was built during a time of really high tensions by people who were (in many cases) understandibly angered by some of the activity surrounding the players both on and off wiki, it results in a really poorly crafted article. I'll keep beating the drum that we really need to look closer at how we're handling this topic, because it's definitely not done so with our core policies in mind. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What items do you think need to be added? And do you have reliable sources to back up their inclusion? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

More information on what "pro-GG" advocates believe. More information on what has been achieved. Less attempts at "debunking" (much of which is incorrectly asserted). More proper attribution. More focus on what the movement is as opposed to what its opposition believes it to be. We can do all that with current sources and with adding more from already-reliable sources as listed above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Write up a few sentences with associated references? Since you seem hesitant to add as a direct edit, make a draft somewhere for us to look at? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Thargor Orlando: it seems like you're approaching this from the viewpoint of "reliable sources can't be trusted because they haven't researched the real Gamergate and are therefore not able to report on it accurately". I counter that reliable sources have researched Gamergate in all of its nebulousness, and have not only determined that harassment is a primary underlying goal, but also that Gamergate supporters' own self-professed goals are irrelevant or misplaced ("ethics in journalism"), deflection and public relations (The Fine Young Capitalists, #NotYourShield), or about attacking contrary ideologies ("Operation Baby Seal", complaints about "social justice warriors"). And this is not my personal opinion, this is what reliable sources have stated loud and clear. We're simply not going to give undue prominence to unreliable/primary/self-published sources soapboxing about the great things that Gamergate has done, when reliable sources have already considered those viewpoints and roundly rejected them. Woodroar (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)\\

No, not really. It's not even a matter of trust, it's a matter of accuracy. Many of the reliable sources we use in this article say that, sure. As noted, and as seen above, it's not the whole story and really isn't the true one. No one who has spent any time here is arguing to use unreliable or primary or self-published sources, so that's just a strawman. What I'm arguing is responsible usage of sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources of the quality of Columbia Journalism Review, PBS, The Week , the NYT, the New Yorker etc etc that support your position that there is a widespread perception of gg that we are not covering appropriately. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Not the point. I'll repeat: what is going on with GG is not the same as what many of these "high quality" sources are reporting, thus bringing into question whether they're high quality for this topic. For example, the amount of changes to ethics guidelines in gaming media over the last 6 months isn't getting reported by "high quality" sources, but trolls who may or may not be involved with the movement harassing some women in the industry is. What, in a topic about Gamergate, should get the attention? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

We follow the sources, not your personal knowledge of "what is going on with gamergate" . AND the reliable sources have looked into the "ethics" and "objectivity" and "collusion" and found them baseless. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

We should follow the sources, yes. The sources do not support what we see in the article, and not at the extent we cover what we do. This is not "personal knowledge," it's information from reliable sources. You can say they found such claims baseless, but you and I both know that the sources we're using for those claims are quite old and outdated. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You will VERY MUCH need to provide ACTUAL EVIDENCE that the any of the claims about living people that the "quite old and outdated" sources clearly and loudly debunked are not still clearly and loudly debunked. Just because it has been hundreds of years since "The Earth is Flat" has been debunked does not mean that "The Earth is Flat" is not still debunked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not geocentrism, this is gaming journalism, a group with a history of questionable behavior when it comes to disclosures. That we can point to a number of gaming magazines and sites that have improved/updated their ethics and disclosure policies following the explosion of the hashtag is important. I'm not sure we can use these in the article, but information exists, and it takes two seconds to Google. The evidence is there, and the real world implications are apparent. It's long past the time for the article to reflect this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, we reflect the reliable sources and you are providing no reliable sources, so you are presenting NOTHING for us to reflect. It is long past time that people stop whacking that dead horse.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what dead horse is being whacked. I've provided plenty of sources so far, there are plenty under the hat provided the other day, and more from those sources. They dispute exactly what you claim, so maybe the dead horse is the continued claim that there's no coverage of what we're talking about? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

In point of fact, I see no bar to using Salon When they laughed at rape: Salon is a reliable source and we currently use Slate; Slate was started in emulation of Salon. The MoviePilot essay is written by the "editor in chief" of MoviePilot, which certainly appears to have regular staff; the site accepts user-contributed material but this is clearly marked as written by the editor in chief and so might be a reliable source as well, and certainly is reliable for her opinion or the opinion of the organization. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

My concern would be adding too much opinion. The facts are better covered by less opinion oriented pieces. IMO. But if we are adding more opinions, these should be added. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

A discussion/statement of the Article about finding an objective viewpoint

Pardon me for intruding, but all I ask is that if my statement here are considered wrong or right and somewhat on the topic of GamerGate to end or begin several points of discussion.

• Misplaced Pages does not search for "a" truth, but for the most known part based on what reliable sources have to say and to what extent on how many people have heard of it? Example: 1 person publishes "a" truth on inside information (unreliable source for now) and/or creation of said "statement". Then a media outlet that published said "truth" says a "version" of said truth to 100 people, even if they have mistranslated or generalized it to an extent that it has become a "lie" to the first "truth" or become a "Half-truth". The statemenet in question leads to this. The source that gave perspective to 100 people would be what Misplaced Pages would write due to it being a reliable source outlet to the most spread of people even if based on a "change" from the first "truth"? Would this be a form of input for Misplaced Pages? (This example is based/inspired bye a study )

If said statement is "true", then GamerGate controversy article in itself cannot change to what it is now unless further weighted reliable sources bring out statistics of another "truth" or using other figureheads of GamerGate members within the controversy and/or GamerGate "sources" that are controversial to the public. This is a deadlock for any change until further newsite prints.
If said statement is "false", would the people in Gaming Journalism not be highly weighted due to their insight and knowledge of every side of the GamerGate Controversy? Even if using only the controversial "side" sources of Gaming Journalism or other source to follow the article's focus of solely controversy such as SupaNova 1 2? TheRealVordox (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages follows the reliably published sources and presents those perceptions of the subject in the relative proportions they are held. WP:UNDUE and WP:RS. With regard to gamergate, the overwhelming perception is of harassment and terrorist threats and a culture war against women and feminists. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

...in the sources you've chosen. If we look at the sources above plus sources we're not using (we could absolutely use The Escapist more, for example), that "overwhelming perception" becomes something more akin to "disproportionate coverage." Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

there are multiple sources of at least the same quality as Escapist that provide much more scathing views of gamergate that we can include as well. (and some sort of evidence of this conspiracy of misreporting by the major media would be nice too.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Who said conspiracy? And yes, an article with some of those "scathing views" would be preferable to what we have now as well, given the disproportionate attention to other issues of smaller relationship. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

you do not use the word "conspiracy" but you keep asserting that all of the mainstream media has colluded or simultaneously failed their in their journalistic duties without any evidence at all. thats a conspiracy theory. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have not once asserted collusion. I do think the media is not being responsible, and the evidence is how the coverage of the topic is not reflective of what's going on. This is not about me, stick to the actual topic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Basically: Tough nuts to you. Your personal opinions about how the media shouldbe covering this are not worth a pile of wet beans. We follow what HAS been covered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Good, so let's cover it in context, and let's use sources that reflect what is happening, not sources that confirm our biases. Telling another editor "tough nuts" is not going to improve the article, actual collaboration on what we can do to improve the state of things here is. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggest some specific edits that use the existing sources. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

We're clearly not at that point yet. Want to work with me on it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As I don't think there's anything to fix, unless you point them out, I won't see anything to work on. But the RS are ok? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Right now, the article violates NPOV by providing a skewed, incorrect coverage of the situation, and you're not seeing any problems? The sources are okay in some places, not in others. We have a good list to start with to help with expanding out what Gamergate actually believes, which would be an excellent starting point if you're actually on board with helping me on it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with ForbiddenRocky. These ideological conversations about how GamerGate ought to be covered by reliable sources goes nowhere but it does seem to be endless.

The solution has been proposed over and over again for anyone who is not content with this article, in any way: Suggest an edit and provide a source that can be used to back up the statement. That's all! Once we have something specific, we can discuss whether that source is reliable for that statement. But these vague criticisms without concrete suggestions are not an effective way of influencing the editing of this article and it turns this talk page into a discussion forum debating what is truth!

It reminds me of GamerGate which refuses to have leadership and then complains that it is not being treated as a movement or that the media is not taking it seriously...but that is because when everyone speaks for an event, no one can be singled as having an authoritative voice and represent the group. If its supporters had even a minimal level of recognized organization, this would be a very different article. Liz 22:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Right now, the article does not violate NPOV. It provides a (reasonably) balanced view, reflecting the preponderant view of reliable sources. Replacing The New Yorker with The Escapist is not likely to be a popular or permissible strategy. Neither WP:BLP nor WP:RS will be relaxed. Indefinite vague attacks on the article are not actionable. If you have a specific proposal, please propose it. If not, what is the purpose of these thousands of words? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources agree: Gamergate’s notable effects are its misogynistic attacks on women and computing. Whether or not an editor considers the media to be responsible is no more relevant to this discussion than whether that editor considers anchovies to be tasty or thinks meats with sauce Robert to be best with a New Zealand Shiraz. When The New Yorker publishes a profile that reflects new accomplishments of Gamergate, we'll take a look; until then, the endless quest to “balance” the New York Times, The New Yorker, The Guardian, and numerous additional sources of the very first quality by scouring the margins of reliable sources for an isolated dissent or two is pointless and also deeply inimical to the purpose and reputation of the project. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately we can't rely on what you've seen. We go by the reliable sources. If you have specific suggestions to improve the article, please go ahead and make them.drseudo (t) 16:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional Press/Media Coverage of this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick question

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

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

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

"Movement" or "Controversy"

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

I've been watching this article from the shadows, and I think there are some parts of it that are quite inaccurate. I am not "Pro" or "Anti" Gamergate, rather I am pro-wikipedia, and would like to see this article (since it garners so much attention) represent wikipedia accurately.

With that said, Gamergate is certainly more of a movement more than a controversy as reported by Reliable Sources. Best example I can give is TIme Magazine:

http://time.com/3510381/gamergate-faq/

Time is quite clear in labeling Gamergate as a movement. Is there any objection to changing the opening paragraph so it more accurately represents what RS are reporting?

Marcos12 (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a the specific wording that you want to use? — Strongjam (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

We just had this discussion days ago. See Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_28#Requested_move_14_February_2015. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, in the first paragraph, how about "Gamergate is an online movement claiming that the gaming industry and the journalists who cover it have grown too close." That's straight from Time. It doesnt necessarily need to be worded exactly like I suggested, but to call Gamergate a "controversy" is really inaccurate. Reliable Sources, and anyone with knowledge of Gamergate would agree. It's a lot of things, but a controversy? Not in anyone's opinion that I can think of. Marcos12 (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate's identity is very fluid since it has refused to have leaders, organization, membership or any stated goals. So, it is partially a movement, in the loosest possible sense but it is also an event, a campaign. I'm not in favor of changing the article title but I think we could work to incorporate this quote from Time in the lead. Liz 23:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As EvergreenFir, we just hard another long, long discussion. 4 editors supported a change to "movement," 23 opposed. Nothing in the Time FAQ indicates that GamerGate has notable adherents, a manifesto, or a statement of goals -- all of which are normally characteristics of movements. Let’s not discuss this further. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Marcos12: You are suggesting what amounts to the page being moved. Again, we just had this discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with EvergreenFir, there might be some wording that incorporates "movement" that I could support, but not this, it's essentially a page rename. — Strongjam (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought this *was* the place for discussion. Time magazine clearly refers to Gamergate as a movement. So do numerous other RS. I don't see any RS describing it as a controversy (albeit this is based on a cursory glance). If you go to google and type "What is Gamergate?", only wikipedia refers to it as a controversy. Again, while I don't have a dog in this fight one way or another, it's pretty clear that very the first sentence, in the very first paragraph, starts out inaccurately. I know people have been working on this for a long time, but if someone happens upon this article looking for info on Gamergate, they are going to be very confused (in my opinion). I (and countless other readers I'm sure) am appreciative of everyone's efforts; at the same time I feel that this article might be in the need of a *fresh* set of eyes with no axe to grind.Marcos12 (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a place for discussion, but that discussion was already had a couple days ago. You are not adding anything new with this particular source so I don't see the point in continuing a discussion that's already occurred. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir and everyone else, we're not talking about changing the article title, it's about how to incorporate the Time article (certainly a reliable source) into this article. The article isn't just about what is significant about the subject but is also descriptive. Time describes it as an "online movement" and I don't understand why that can't be incorporated. Liz 00:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

As we already had this discussion, I don't anticipate anyone coming around on it yet, but I'm obviously in favor of any change that puts it into a move NPOV statement of "movement" or the like. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me put it another way: if someone approached you and asked you "What is Gamergate?", is there *anyone* here, I am referring to any editor reading this, that would answer "Gamergate is a controversy." ?? I can't see why there would be pages of discussion about this. It seems glaringly obvious to me. I understand this is a charged topic, but *nobody* wins if the reader is simply confused about the subject at hand. Marcos12 (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The "movement" isn't what's notable though. The controversy surrounding it is. And that's what the page is about. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The previous proposal was closed on 16 February. Today is 23 February. We're repeating what was said there. Let's close and hat. We can revisit this in a year. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Or we can let the discussion run its course and ensure consensus hasn't changed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Six days is probably not enough time for the equine zombification process to take place, unfortunately. Seconding the call to hat and move on—surely there are other non-WP:SNOW ideas for improving the article.drseudo (t) 00:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@evergeenfir Sure, so if the controversy is notable, then why not define it as a "controversial movement" ? As I said before, this article may very well be someone's *first* exposure to wikipedia. If I showed the article to my 11 year old cousin or 85 year old grandmother (using two examples of people who would be unfamiliar with the controversy/movement), I think it's safe to assume they would have more questions than answers after reading it. I guess what I am trying to say is this article could be much cleaner. You could probably define the whole kerfluffle in four or five paragraphs tops. But I get the impression that *any* edit, no matter how small, is going to be met with a committee group clamoring against it. Marcos12 (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's Why the Lead Sucks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In response to: "Can we at least all agree that it's terrible in its present state? Or do some of you actually like it?"

• I think the sources you linked (in terms of how they use the term 'movement' and how they characterize its origins, purpose, and goals, to the limited extent that they can) are already addressed in the lead, which goes on to say that "These attacks, initially performed under the Twitter hashtag #gamergate, were later variously coordinated in the online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in an anonymous and amorphous movement." What you're trying to say here is that you want to characterize what type of movement it is (you believe that you know how Gamergate self-identifies, and want to put this in the article.) However, we have to base our coverage on reliable sources, which generally don't describe it in that manner, and which don't even seem to agree with you that Gamergate defines itself as a consumer movement. We have many more sources defining it as based around cultural warfare, I think. --Aquillion (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of the lede! I'm impressed with the editors who have brought it to its current state in what has occasionally been a very adversarial environment. I don't think any of the proposals you have to change the lede reflect our article, and the primary goal of the lede is to summarise the article's content, so I'd oppose your suggestions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I said this twice above, but I think it's core enough to the discussion to deserve its own section: The current lead does already say that "These attacks, initially performed under the Twitter hashtag #gamergate, were later variously coordinated in the online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in an anonymous and amorphous movement." This, I think, answers all the sources you have above. If I understand your concerns correctly (there's been a lot of things said!), you don't feel that this description accurately represents either the 'movement', such as it is, or its origins, or its purpose; but we have to base our coverage on reliable sources, in proportion to the weight given by those sources, and most of them describe it in that manner. You claim that we're not presenting the crux of the controversy, but according to most reliable sources, that is the crux of the controversy. We do go on to discuss, elsewhere in the lead, the various other aspects that different sources have commented on, but at heart we cannot substitute an editor's personal opinions about what Gamergate is 'really' about for the coverage in reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Wu, PAX, Police

Citing threats, game maker pulls her company from PAX East fest: Says call for more security ignored Add the bit about the police not being contacted? Shorten the tried to contact PAX and this part? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what the police contact situation would add to the article. Personally would prefer if we just said she cancelled due to safety concerns for her employees and left it at that. No need to get into the specifics about PAX, as that's beyond the scope of the article. — Strongjam (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm for including that PAX didn't contact the police, and shortening the quote about PAX not responding to Wu.ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Police wouldn't be contacted, as it's a private event and the police presence would be the extent of it. If there's anything new worth adding, it would be "convention center officials conducted their own security assessment several months before PAX East, as they do before every event, but didn’t see any major red flags," which would explain why the concerns would come across as being "ignored." Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually police are quite regularly, in fact almost standardly, contacted about large scale private events where security may be an issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Right. Not at events where there, to use the reliable source, aren't "any major red flags." This is the kind of context that we didn't get from the first source, and we now have two sources that found it helpful to note the other side of the situation, as should we. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

the fact that convention organizers do not see widespread sustained death threat campaign against women as a "redflag" says something in and of itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps that there isn't one. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The "red flag" issue probably belong in one of the Women and Video Gaming article and/or sexual harassment. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why that would fit in there, but better discussed at that article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, recall again that death threats are typical in the industry. Would it be synthesis to add what I'm linking in this comment to the article? Yup. Is it the context we need as editors to understand why said threats aren't a "red flag" and why we should handle the topic responsibly in the article? Yes. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am glad find it interesting, and sad, that you are so comfortable with the fact that death threats are a common feature of the gaming community. However, your personal comfort does not mean that we treat or contextualize death threats as normal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You just seem to be strawmanning there. HalfHat 18:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

No strawmanning at all. Thargor Orlando made a specific plea that we as Misplaced Pages editors need to edit from within a context where death threats are normal. They are not. Nor do we edit from such a context. And it is sad that people believe such a context is and should be treated as normal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"This is normal" does not equate to "I'm comfortable with this". HalfHat 09:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

In context, this is different than general industry death threats (how horrible is it to minimize that?), these death threats are in the Gamergate context. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

As she's an industry representative and Gamergate is the thing du jour in gaming discussion in the media, it's not really too different. More to the point, the link shared in the section below (combined with the unfortunate reality of internet death threats) is probably why such threats aren't being taken as credible by the authorities. That's speculation for here, not for the article, and is really why I'm continuing to insist on proper context in our editorial decisions. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Police weren't contacted while Wu tried to work with PAX. Police were contacted after Wu pulled out. It's not our job as editors to make claims about what PAX or the police would or wouldn't do as SOP. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure on where but article on the "spoof" Jace Connors thing

. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we use the Buzzfeed sources isntead? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is probably the currently highest RS source there. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

But the mcvuk is sourced from Buzzfeed's interview.ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

International Business Times is also reporting on this as well (while still citing BuzzFeed). IBT is a reliable source, IIRC, and given the media attention that the "Deagle Nation" videos got re: GamerGate, inclusion I think is warranted --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 19:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Trying to figure if this belongs in Wu's article, Women in gaming, sexual harassment, and/or here. It adds context to the harassment of Wu, and speaks to the effect of the GG harassment. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we can build a consensus that it belongs on Wu's article. kencf0618 (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class video game articles
• High-importance video game articles
• WikiProject Video games articles
• B-Class Feminism articles
• Mid-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• B-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• B-Class Internet culture articles
• High-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles
• B-Class Freedom of speech articles
• Mid-importance Freedom of speech articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press