Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:35, 21 June 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. Also, the article and this Talk page may not be edited by accounts with fewer than 500 edits, or by accounts that are less than 30 days old. Edits made by accounts that do not meet these qualifications may be removed. (Such removals would not be subject to any "revert-rule" counting.)

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 Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks view watch edit history shell vg talk alerts purge AfDs PKHeX (0 participants) Santiago (meme character) (11 participants) List of James Bond villains (5 participants) Evernight Games (0 participants) Pokémon Home (2 participants) List of Pokémon volumes (2 participants) Gameplay of Pokémon (8 participants) Lisette Titre-Montgomery (7 participants) Party royale game (3 participants) List of Minecraft characters (9 participants) Cossacks (video games series) (3 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) 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 (nom) Frostpunk (start) Shiny Pokémon (start) Cry of Fear (start) Moida Mansion (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 Anarchy Online (nom) Articles that need... assessment (4) (0) reassessment (0) cleanup (3) infoboxes (9) cover art (249) screenshots (8,994) 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 Low‑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 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. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

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

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. David Auerbach (5 February 2015). "The Misplaced Pages Ouroboros". Slate. ... months of chaos, misconduct, and tendentiousness on Gamergate-related pages ... Amanda Marcotte (6 March 2015). "On Misplaced Pages, Gamergate Refuses to Die". Slate. Gamergaters were ultimately unable to use Misplaced Pages to assert their views as if they were objective reality. Still, Misplaced Pages lost the very people who were trying to guard the gates in the first place. What happens to the next victim of a Misplaced Pages harassment campaign if the defenders are getting squeezed out through this pox-on-both-your-houses system? Lauren C. Williams (6 March 2015). "The 'Five Horsemen' Of Misplaced Pages Paid The Price For Getting Between Trolls And Their Victims". Think Progress. It's interesting how a male feminist had to write a blog about it before anybody realized that there are these problems on Misplaced Pages. Fabian Flock; et al. (2015). "Towards Better Visual Tools for Exploring Misplaced Pages Article Development – The Use Case of "Gamergate Controversy"" (PDF). Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. We present a comparative analysis of three tools for visually exploring the revision history of a Misplaced Pages article. We do so on the use case of "Gamergate Controversy", an article that has been the setting of a major editor dispute in the last half of 2014 and early 2015, resulting in multiple editor bans and gathering news media attention. {{cite news}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)

Template:Copied multi

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.

The purpose of this Talkpage is to host ongoing discussion among interested editors regarding the Gamergate controversy article itself. This page is not for discussing this Talk page itself or any other meta-discussion; use the Talk:Gamergate controversy/Meta subpage for that. The subpage's creation is an Arbitration Enforcement action.

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 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 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: 7 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.

Quick revert comment

On this revert I did , I will note that the validity of these sources have been discussed on this talk page before, even if they aren't the highest RSes. Also, the removal of them was stated because they were duplicative, but duplicate sources are not a bad thing; in one case, the original Mary Sue article written by Wu was removed in favor of the Ars Tech article that summarized her comments, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with including both. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Has the reliablity of APGNation been discussed before? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 21:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The archive search shows it coming up several times, primarily because it is an interview with TFYC, and less trying to be a "factual" aspect. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

To add, I'm not saying we can't rediscuss the reliability of these sources, but before they are removed from the article, that should be rechecked for each of the sources in question. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If I remember correctly APGN is not considered an RS yet due to the lack of journalistic experience within the editorial team. But the article in question (an interview with Matthew Rappard of TFYC) can be used to source TFYC's opinions on stuff and whatnot.Bosstopher (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign"

"virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign" Take 2

So do people think this is an accurate representation of the sources? I think its a fair enough summation.Bosstopher (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

As long as we are including two or more sources immediately afterward that use that wording exactly to refer to the harassment (which we have, it is not that it doesn't exist, just not added as a ref to that sentence yet) then yes. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

So basically if those sources are added the problem is solved and everyone is in agreement about the actual content of the article, even if in disagreement about the theory behind it?Bosstopher (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The sources clearly characterize the harassment as virulent and misogynistic. Other adjectives could be added, but perhaps they can be reserved for use elsewhere in the article. "Toxic" seems well represented in the sources, for example. Since so many “new” and “completely neutral” editors repeatedly arrive to “question” this topic, it might be a service if we included a sampling of the threats -- perhaps in this case setting them off in a quote box because the whole point here is to call attention to them. The quotes from The New Yorker, Boston Magazine, and the Washington Post would be reasonable places to start. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be a violation of soapboxing. Yes, GG harassment has been seen as bad, over and over again, we have that sourced. There is no need to add more fuel to that fire just because you can source how its described 20 different ways. It is only that we should be making sure that in summarizing the condemnation that commonly used contentious words are given inline sources so that it does not appear that WP is creating that contention. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

There used to be a blockquote in the article but it was removed by User:Rhoark back in January with the argument "Block quotation should be used for readability, not emphasis". In my opinion plastering extreme threats of violence and rape over the article in block quotes would be innapropriate. While Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTCENSORED, I don't think we should make the article overly violent and explicit in tone and make it more distressing to read. It also feels to me slightly exploitative of the harassment that the people in question have suffered through. See for example Murder of Junko Furuta, where a conscious editorial choice has been made to keep the minimal amount of gory details in the article. I think it would be more tasteful to follow that style, while obviously not ignoring the real damage done by the harassment. Bosstopher (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

To be precise, I replaced the block quote with a standard inline quote. I could not find any specific policy governing such a case, but I have never seen any precedent for highlighting a quote in such a massive font, and the MOS did not mention the use of quotation templates for such a purpose. It is my opinion that the quote does not belong in the article at all, but it was obviously prudent to approach the matter incrementally. Its inclusion is clearly for the purpose of editorializing, and it is not consistent with WP:AVOIDVICTIM. With regard to the question that started this thread, "virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign" is an accurate paraphrase of what a lot of the sources say. It is, however, editorializing and peacock language not suitable for use in Misplaced Pages's voice. Rhoark (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Not WP:PEACOCK. It's merely descriptive of the type of harassment. — Strongjam (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a grandiose description of the type of harassment. A statement in encyclopedic tone would be along the lines of, "After the blog post, Quinn and her family received numerous threatening or slanderous messages by phone and social media. Commentators have called this a coordinated misogynist campaign." -> segue into discussion of all PoVs about 4chan logs. Rhoark (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope. That just downplays and avoids describe it as our sources do. Bitter, hostile, and often misogynistic. — Strongjam (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, we want to be very careful to reflect the consensus of the best and most reliable sources; if the sources report vivid and violent detail of repellent harassment, it is not our place to hide that from our readers. We want to be sure to get it right -- that's why we keep discussing this over and over and over again. Are only “new” and “completely neutral” editors who have arrive here from Gamergate basements permitted to raise questions? If we're going to ask whether the article reflect the preponderance of the reliable sources, I think there's a very good chance that the current text does not -- that it errs in excusing or explaining Gamergate harassment tactics in ways that the best and most reliable sources carefully avoid. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

We should be very careful to reflect every consensus of every reliable source, in appropriately proportional space. This is one of the five pillars, and not optional. It is not our place to hide any views from readers, nor anoint any as more correct than another, preponderant or not. Rhoark (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I do want to alert my fellow editors to a fairly new twist we saw today. First, editors arrive to "clean up" the article by "removing unneeded references" to avoid WP:COATRACK. Then, some time later, "completely neutral" and "new" editors challenge the text as unreferenced, and claim that the text is unsupported by the sources. This claim was a lie, regrettably, untrue; TRPoD found one source in minutes, Masem (thanks!) found another, and while we were speculating about potential plagiarism on the part of a former senior editor at CJR, a dug up a half dozen more. Net result: a lot of people wasted a good deal of time rehashing a question that has been thoroughly settled, PLUS the clever idea: one editor removes the references, and then the other editor separately removes the text because now it has no references. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I remind you of your duty to assume good faith. Where it relates to me, your accusations are completely without merit. At this stage, you are the one wasting everybody's time. We are very near resolution here. Let's finish up and move on. Handpolk (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

We begin with an assumption of good faith that editors are here to improve the encyclopedia. We are not obligated to ignore evidence to the contrary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I added an artificial timestamp to TheRedPenOfDoom's comment above, to satisfy the automatic archiver. Please fix the date and time if you can find it from the history. --TS 14:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

What reliable sources say

That's a phrase that gets bandied about a lot, but I think as the months run on the memories of what actually was said have dimmed, and people have begun to project their assumptions. A refresher is due. There are a lot of minor points with a broad spectrum of positions, so for now I'll just focus on two questions. First, what is GamerGate? Second (in service of the section directly above), what was the nature of the harassment Quinn received right after the zoepost?

New York Times "Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in ‘GamerGate’ Campaign"

What is GamerGate? "a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage. The more extreme threats seem to be the work of a much smaller faction and aimed at women."

Zoe Harassment "threats of violence"

• Clarification: The NYT leads into the paragraph quoted above with "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. " --21:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Polygon "On GamerGate: A letter from the editor"

What is GamerGate? "this wave of hatred but also its complementary "movement," focused ostensibly on ethics in game journalism"

Zoe Harassment

• Clarification: The source also says "Of course, this whole thing didn't begin with "ethics.", and "By politics, the voices calling for ethics reform really mean "progressive" politics. The so-called corruption that needs to be rooted out is a focus on "diversity" and the "magnitude of the human experience." --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Polygon "GamerGate is an ugly mess, but this picture of it is beautiful"

What is GamerGate? "The GamerGate movement and Twitter hashtag is a social campaign defined by most supporters as a call to effect change in video game journalism and to defend the "gamer" identity. The movement is difficult to define because what it has come to represent has no central leadership or agreed-upon manifesto."

Zoe Harassment "ongoing and well-established harassment"

• Clarification: The full text here is "The campaign is now also linked to ongoing and well-established harassment of women in video games," --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Post "The only guide to Gamergate you will ever need to read"

What is GamerGate? "Whatever Gamergate may have started as, it is now an Internet culture war. On one side are independent game-makers and critics, many of them women, who advocate for greater inclusion in gaming. On the other side of the equation are a motley alliance of vitriolic naysayers: misogynists, anti-feminists, trolls, people convinced they’re being manipulated by a left-leaning and/or corrupt press, and traditionalists who just don’t want their games to change."

Zoe Harassment "death and rape threats so specific, so actionable, that she fled her house and called the cops"

additional quote: "Here at the Intersect, we have ignored Gamergate for as long as humanly possible — in large part because it’s been covered in enormous, impressive depth elsewhere, and in smaller part because we’re exhausted by the senseless, never-ending onslaught of Internet misogyny" added by TRPOD -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Post "Inside Gamergate’s (successful) attack on the media"

What is GamerGate? "GamerGate has come to represent a lot of different things to a lot of different people. But to a core group of astoundingly fervent supporters, the ongoing saga has never been about women, or harassment, or even video games. It’s about fighting what they see as a massive, progressive conspiracy among female game developers, feminists and sympathetic, left-leaning media outlets"

Zoe Harassment

Additional content: "But the incident still demonstrates a worrying new trend among the Gamergate crowd: curbing the speech of reporters they don’t like by threatening their advertisers." "the jokes were an obvious — if tongue-in-cheek — commentary on the movement’s well-documented, often hateful, idiocy." added by TRPOD, -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ars Technica "Chat logs show how 4chan users created #GamerGate controversy"

What is GamerGate? "a hashtag that became a breeding ground for all kinds of conspiracy theories surrounding the "corrupt" systems that allowed Quinn and Sarkeesian to figure in the industry as they do. As the hashtag spread, spectators got increasingly drawn into arguments about the ethics governing relationships between game developers and the gaming press."

Zoe Harassment "Quinn soon had her accounts hacked and her personal information stolen (experiences she was accused of fabricating)"

additional content from the lead: "A set of IRC logs released Saturday appear to show that a handful of 4chan users were ultimately behind #GamerGate, the supposedly grass-roots movement aimed at exposing ethical lapses in gaming journalism. The logs show a small group of users orchestrating a "hashtag campaign" to perpetuate misogynistic attacks by wrapping them in a debate about ethics in gaming journalism." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Nieman Reports "What GamerGate Can Teach Journalists About Handling Twitter Storms"

What is GamerGate? "an honest attempt to expose the cozy relationship between the video games industry and the reporters who cover it—or simply an excuse to harass women on the Internet? It's details are complex and convoluted."

Zoe Harassment "death threats against Quinn"

• Note: "GamerGate eventually evolved into a sprawling, amorphous mess of allegations—and it resulted in death threats against Quinn and other women in the industry". --Aquillion (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Game Informer "GamerGate's Origins And What It Is Now"

What is GamerGate? "hate group"

Zoe Harassment "waves of hatred were spewed at Zoe Quinn over social media, culminating in the posting of her personal information online"

Slate "Letter to a Young Male Gamer"

What is GamerGate?

Zoe Harassment "trolling Quinn, harassing and threatening her, hacking her accounts, even calling her home and circulating nude pictures of her"

CinemaBlend "GamerGate: Everyone Hates Each Other And I'm Really Tired"

What is GamerGate? "arguments about misogyny, professional responsibility, privacy, the direction of the gaming industry and copyright"

Zoe Harassment "harassment by a small, vocal group"

• Note: This is an opinion piece by a not-particularly-notable author in an obscure site. Definitely not usable for statements of fact, and no particular reason why we should highlight this person's opinion. Useless as a source. --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

TechCrunch "The #Gamergate Question"

What is GamerGate? "a reactionary movement on Twitter largely in response to what gamers perceive as an attack on them and the corruption of their media"

Zoe Harassment "a torrent of abuse and more abuse"

• Note: See what I said above, this is the same thing. Opinion piece by a not-particularly-notable author on an obscure site. Definitely not usable for statements of fact, and no particular reason why we should highlight this person's opinion. Useless as a source. --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

TechCrunch "#GamerGate – An Issue With Two Sides"

What is GamerGate? "a warning of the perils of unaccountable and secretive moderation systems"

Zoe Harassment

• Note: See what I said above again, this is the same thing. Opinion piece by a not-particularly-notable author on an obscure site. Definitely not usable for statements of fact, and no particular reason why we should highlight this person's opinion. Useless as a source. --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Spiked Online "#Gamergate: we must fight for the right to fantasise"

What is GamerGate? " refusing to cave in to the Culture War being waged against them and their favourite pastime"

Zoe Harassment

• Note: See what I said above again again, this is the same thing. Opinion piece by a not-particularly-notable author on a comparatively obscure site. Definitely not usable for statements of fact, and no particular reason why we should highlight this person's opinion. Useless as a source. --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Al Jazeera America "GamerGate: How the video game industry's culture war began"

What is GamerGate? "Originally created by gamers concerned with what they saw as an overly cozy relationship between the game developers and the gaming media, #GamerGate became associated in the media with the worst of online harassment of women."

Zoe Harassment

New York Magazine "Gamergate Should Stop Lying to Journalists — and Itself"

What is GamerGate? "anger at progressive people who care about feminism and transgender rights and mental health and whatever else is getting involved in gaming, and by what gamergaters see as overly solicitous coverage of said individuals and their games"

Zoe Harassment "Quinn was receiving hate"

NPR "#Gamergate Controversy Fuels Debate On Women And Video Games"

What is GamerGate? "#Gamergate is about two key things: ethics in video game journalism, and the role and treatment of women in the video game industry"

Zoe Harassment "Quinn was soon flooded with death threats and rape threats. Her personal information, even photos, were hacked and posted online, forcing her to leave her home."

CNN "Behind the furor over #Gamergate"

What is GamerGate? "a heated debate over journalistic integrity, the definition of video games and the identity of those who play them"

Zoe Harassment "both Quinn and Sarkeesian found themselves subject to violent online threats"

Columbia Journalism Review "How do we know what we know about #Gamergate?"

What is GamerGate? "At core, the movement is a classic culture war. Video games are becoming more sophisticated and appeal to a greater diversity of people. Naturally, debates about what is a legitimate game, who gets to be a gamer, and which critics get to define those terms arise"

Zoe Harassment "had their addresses posted online along with death and rape threats"

• Note: Also "Some gamers have adopted "Gamergate" as the term for a loosely defined movement defending hardcore games against criticisms from feminists and others." And "It's called #Gamergate, with or without the hashtag, and it has triggered ongoing, online barrages between a wide variety of disgruntled people: video gamers, feminists, Internet trolls, scholars, misogynists, gaming-industry journalists and almost anyone else with web access and an ax to grind." --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Crave Online "Gamergate and the Continued Backlash Against “Outrage Culture”"

What is GamerGate? "Gamergate now represents a growing mindset that progressiveness is stifling free speech, and while this isn’t true, it’s not difficult to see how this viewpoint could be adopted when many self-appointed progressives leap to outrage as soon as the opportunity is handed to them."

Zoe Harassment "a vulgar wave of harassment"

• Note: See what I said above again again again, this is the same thing. Opinion piece by a not-particularly-notable author on a comparatively niche site. Definitely not usable for statements of fact, and no particular reason why we should highlight this person's opinion. Useless as a source. --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Pacific Standard "Online Harassment of Women Isn't Just a Gamer Problem"

What is GamerGate? "The effort to link gamer identity to deviance has also sponsored a backlash: Some have started using the hashtag #gamergate to criticize the video game press and push back against their current portrayal in the media."

Zoe Harassment "harassment"

• Note: Also "Instead of trying to address the harassment of Sarkeesian and Quinn, the conversation has become one about competing victimization, with self-identified gamers using the "gamer" identity to present themselves as the aggrieved parties and attack their perceived enemies." --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

boingboing "How imageboard culture shaped Gamergate"

What is GamerGate? "clash of anonymous imageboard culture with the parts of social media where people live and work"

Zoe Harassment "GamerGaters were spreading personal information, nude photos, and defamatory accusations against game developer Zoe Quinn"

Daily Caller "The #WaronNerds: How Far-Left Feminists And The Media Created #Gamergate"

What is GamerGate? "an online movement by video game enthusiasts focused primarily on ethics in video game journalism and the video game industry, with secondary concerns about the corrupting influence of extreme left-wing ideology on both"

Zoe Harassment "death threats and harassment against Quinn"

• Note: See what I said above again again again, this is the same thing. Opinion piece by a not-particularly-notable author on a comparatively obscure site. Definitely not usable for statements of fact, and no particular reason why we should highlight this person's opinion. Useless as a source. --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Forbes "GamerGate: A Closer Look At The Controversy Sweeping Video Games"

What is GamerGate? "In the end, it’s about gamers upset with the status quo and demanding something better. It’s about a group of consumers and enthusiasts not simply feeling that their identity is threatened, but believing that they’re being poorly represented by an industry and press that grow more and more cliquish and remote every year."

Zoe Harassment "Both Quinn and YouTuber Anita Sarkeesian reported death threats forcing them to leave their homes."

• Note: Opinion piece by a not-particularly-notable author on a less obscure site. We can (and do) mention their opinion, but it is just their opinion, and deserves no more than the sentence or two it gets, explicitly attributed to them. Among such opinions, it is clearly WP:FRINGE. Useless to use as a source for a broad rewrite of the article. (If you feel some of the other sources I've described as marginal are not-so-marginal, they likely fall into the same place.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Real Clear Politics "The Gender Games: Sex, Lies, and Videogames"

What is GamerGate? "To liberals and progressives, it’s part of a reactionary white male backlash against the rise of diversity—in this case, “sexist thugs” out to silence and destroy women who seek equality in the gaming subculture. To conservatives and right-leaning libertarians, it’s a welcome pushback against left-wing cultural diktat"

Zoe Harassment "Threads discussing this dust-up, some of them quite nasty"

• Note: Opinion piece by a not-particularly-notable author on a less obscure site. We can (and do) mention their opinion, but it is just their opinion, and deserves no more than the sentence or two it gets, explicitly attributed to them. Useless to use as a source for a broad rewrite of the article. (If you feel some of the other sources I've described as marginal are not-so-marginal, they fall into the same place.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Adam Smith Institute "Why gamergate will lose"

What is GamerGate? "those who either think there is a conspiracy in games journalism; that they have been unfairly stigmatised and bullied; those who dislike Zoe Quinn; and/or those who oppose social justice activism being a major part of games journalism"

Zoe Harassment "sexual and violent threats against Quinn"

• Note: See what I said above again again again etc, this is the same thing. Opinion piece by a not-particularly-notable author on a comparatively obscure site. Definitely not usable for statements of fact, and no particular reason why we should highlight this person's opinion. Useless as a source. --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Metaleater "GAMERS LIVE! AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF GAMERGATE"

What is GamerGate? "The people at the core of GamerGate are the gamers, among which I count myself. GamerGate started because gamers felt attacked"

Zoe Harassment "Quinn got doxxed"

• Note: See what I said above again again again etc, this is the same thing. Opinion piece by a not-particularly-notable author on a comparatively obscure site. Definitely not usable for statements of fact, and no particular reason why we should highlight this person's opinion. Useless as a source. --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Vox "Gamergate and the politicization of absolutely everything"

What is GamerGate? "Gamergate has become a political conflict. Video games, at this point, are an excuse for that conflict Gamergate, as well as the reaction against it, isn't any one thing. It includes horrifying, probably criminal, harassment against pretty much any women who dare oppose it. It's partly an argument about what kinds of games the gaming press should cover — and, by extension, what kinds of games developers should make. It has members who want clearer disclosure policies in gaming journalism. It has a lot of people who joined because they hate feminism and internet "social justice" warriors. And it has many people, on both sides, who are far surer about who they're fighting than what they're fighting about."

Zoe Harassment

The New Yorker "Gamergate: A Scandal Erupts in the Video-Game Community"

What is GamerGate? "Gamergate is an expression of a narrative that certain video-game fans have chosen to believe: that the types of games they enjoy may change or disappear in the face of progressive criticism and commentary, and that the writers and journalists who cover the industry coördinate their message and skew it to push an agenda."

Zoe Harassment

The New Yorker "Zoe Quinn’s Depression Quest"

What is GamerGate? "In the past few weeks, a debate about journalistic ethics in video-game coverage has spilled onto social media. Tens of thousands of tweets were written, most of them accompanied by the hashtag #gamergate. Many Twitter users involved in the discussion called for more clarity and disclosure by writers about the relationships they have with independent creators. They want critics to abide by John Updike’s sound rule to never “accept for review a book you are … committed by friendship to like.” In Quinn’s case, the fact that she was the subject of the attacks rather than the friend who wrote about her game reveals the true nature of much of the criticism: a pretense to make further harassment of women in the industry permissible."

Zoe Harassment "After the developer was doxed, the prank calls, threatening e-mails, and abusive tweets intensified to such a degree that Quinn, fearing for her safety, chose to leave her home and sleep on friends’ sofas."

Boston Magazine "Game of Fear"

What is GamerGate? "a savage online movement a witch hunt against anyone involved in breaches of so-called ethics in video-game journalism"

Zoe Harassment "What’s more, she told the judge, the results had been particularly severe: Since Gjoni’s initial blog post, “I have received numerous death and rape threats from an anonymous mob that had given details to,” she wrote. “My personal info like my home address, phone number, emails, passwords, and those of my family has been widely distributed, alongside nude photos of me, and several of my professional accounts and those of my colleagues have been hacked.”"

The Huffington Post "What is #GamerGate?"

What is GamerGate? "The conversation continues to divide gamers calling for journalistic integrity within the gaming industry and those who believe #Gamergate is merely a misogynistic movement aimed at alienating female gamers."

Zoe Harassment

Additional sources Boston Globe What is gamergate? a "shadowy movement called GamerGate" which is responsible for sending death threats to a game developer.

" mocked members of a shadowy and threatening gaming movement called GamerGate, " "GamerGate took off after the ex-boyfriend of a Boston area independent game developer, Zoe Quinn, blogged about her alleged infidelity" added by TRPoD -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This is just what I had bookmarked, so please do post more. Rhoark (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Since I value the contributions of Mr. Bernstein so greatly, I'll do his legwork for him. A few more sources for the list. Rhoark (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

A lot of those are blog posts and opinion pieces, looking over them. Remember, we can't cite blogs or opinion pieces for statements of fact, only to say eg. "so-and-so believes this" (and even then, we have to establish that their opinion is noteworthy; most of the people there don't look particularly noteworthy.) Others, like TechCrunch, metaleater, and CinemaBlend, have been brought up several times but don't really pass WP:RS, at least not for any controversial statements on a topic with this level of coverage, since they either lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, are low-profile enough that it would be giving them WP:UNDUE weight to focus on any WP:FRINGE views they express when they contradict mainstream coverage, or both. The others vary wildly in quality, prominence, and relevance. Of the sources we can use, I'm not seeing anything in them that isn't already covered in the article, and nothing that particularly supports your assertion that people are losing sight of what the reliable sources say -- these are all sources we discussed in depth, and I assure you anyone who has been editing the article for any length of time is well-acquainted with all of them. --Aquillion (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Many sources in this list, replete with right-wing sites, are unusable, and many top sources (New Yorker, Boston Magazine) apparently absent. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi MarkBernstein, Many thanks for your comments. W.r.t the connection between a source being "right wing" and it being "unusable"; if this is suggested as a causal relationship, that they are unusable because they are right wing, then it is certainly a novel approach. Would you be able to provide policy or guideline supporting this? WP:NPOV#Bias_in_sources would seem to suggest that there is no prohibition on using "biased" sources, provided we write the article in a neutral manner. WP:NPOV#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements suggests that this can be achieved by attributing statements from biased sources. Thanks in advance for your additional thoughts on this. - Ryk72 17:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Not all of these are considered reliable sources but thank you for putting together a list that can be considered, Rhoark. So many different lists of possible sources have been posted in the talk pages that there should be a running list somewhere so we can easily see which have already been considered and which ones are new sources. Liz 14:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz, Thanks for raising this important point. While we require a very strong standard for sources supporting statements of fact in Misplaced Pages's voice, opinion sources are inherently "reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author"; so this is not as big an issue as it would seem. As Aquillion suggests, the question of WP:DUE remains, but, given that this is an article on a controversy, it would not seem undue to document a range of views on the subjects. (It may be useful to think of this article as analogous to the "Flat Earth" article, not the "Earth" article). Hope this helps. - Ryk72 19:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

However, we have frequently been asked to skew the article to give preferential emphasis to WP:FRINGE or simply fantastical opinions that are poorly represented, or unrepresented in the sources. We won't do that, of course.MarkBernstein (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi MarkBernstein, Many thanks for your comments, as always.

Looking at the content guideline WP:FRINGE, it covers two separate but related aspects of determining what is appropriate content. The first is a reiteration of WP:NOR, which is covered by having sources (even if these are sources for opinion, provided they are attributed as such). The second is a rephrasing/clarification of WP:DUE as it applies to an article about a mainstream idea and suggests that a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight. While a number of opinions are expressed in a great deal of sources, it would erroneous to suggest that any of these rise to the level of "scholarship"; far less academic agreement on the subject.

Additionally, this Article is about A debate, discussion of opposing opinions; strife; and I cannot concur that it is WP:UNDUE to document those opposing opinions; nor can I, looking at the range of sources (some of which are listed above) concur that any of the wide variety of opinions is legitimately a Fringe theory within the common meaning of that term.

For these reasons, WP:FRINGE, like WP:RS before it, is not a legitimate basis for objection to inclusion of the spectrum of opinions on the subject matter, as covered in the sources listed by Rhoark above.

Of course, if your reference was to opinions other than those expressed in the sources above, I would be please to address these should they be raised.

Hope this helps. - Ryk72 22:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The main reliable sources above are journalism pieces, not opinion pieces. The NYT, WaPO, CNN, etc., all have opinion sections, which is part of what makes them reliable sources (i.e., separating news from editorials). These articles were not published in their opinion sections. Woodroar (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Rhoark says of the New Yorker, "Zoe Harassment ". This continues a disturbing trend on these pages of assertions that are incorrect, readily demonstrated to be incorrect, that their authors should have known to be incorrect, but were stated anyway. In this case, The New Yorker ran an entire profile on Zoe Quinn’s harassment: . This reference could have been discovered by reading the article page -- as I recall there's a long and memorable quote, one that was mentioned right here yesterday. Or there’s the Zoe Quinn page, which refers to it. Or there’s always Google, not to mention The New Yorker’s capable full text search. The spectrum of positions, once we sort out the wing nuts, is not very large, and is adequately represented in the article (although, as I say above, most sources outside Misplaced Pages treat Gamergate as either a criminal or terrorist conspiracy, and so our present treatment is generous to the point of violating WP:FRINGE). MarkBernstein (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added that link now, too. This is why if anyone thinks a significant source has been omitted from the above list, it would be better they specify it precisely. I have not made any claim that every significant view is represented in the list so far. After some more time has passed for people to point out omissions, I'll respond to the matters of the sources' reliability and the overall implications of this list. Rhoark (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Since the press is not a legal authority, even if the entire press body considers GG as criminal, we cannot present that as fact if no legal case has been established. (The only legal aspect we have reported is the restraining order Quinn got towards Gjoni). "Terrorist" also is a term with legal connotations, same with "hate group" (as there are different sets of laws that can be engaged if these was legally labelled as such). We can explain with attribution this is how the press feels, but we can't state it as fact. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

One night some time ago, someone broke into my house and made off with, among other things, a television and a bottle of bourbon. The burglar was not apprehended; we cannot identify him. But my television was stolen, a crime was committed. We do not know, yet, who use Misplaced Pages to threaten to murder Zoe Quinn, but we know this happened, and we know it was a criminal act. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No question that the crime here (harassment and threats) are illegal, barring any result of that SCOTUS decision (which involves motive). But we have no idea of the identity of the people that did it, outside of it being done under the name of GG. No specific person has been identified, arrested, or tried, as best we know, so to say that GG supporters are criminal or terrorists or a hate group is WP's voice but only based on the press's stance would not be proper. There has been a crime done by one or more people using the GG hashtag, but that is purely an unknown group at the present time, as opposed to the GG supporters who claim their motives are about ethics. These sources (particularly the higher ones on the list, the more reliable ones) do make this difference between hashtag users and GG supporters clear, even if they dismiss the ethics claims given by the GG supporters and suggest that their group encourages/enables the harassment. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

And you are still wrong Masem. when the only thing that identifies a gamergater is the use of the hashtag, crimes done under the hashtag are crimes done by gamergate. "no true gamergater would commit illegal harassment" does not stand up in court. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So Milo and Christina - who have now fully identified themselves with gamergate - should be charged with the crime of harassment? Obviously, no, it doesn't work like that. Yes, the crimes are attributable to some subset (which perhaps may be all, but as sources suggest, probably is more likely a small subset) of those using the hashtag, and if law enforcement can figure out that subset with proper evidence, I'm sure criminal justice would be served. But no source - and certainly not WP - assigns the criminal act to the whole of the GG movement, and the highest reliable sources in the list do suggest the criminal aspect is only a small portion of those using the hashtag. The sources do infer that the movement does not do enough to stem harassment and in fact its nature of anonymity and leaderlessness encourages that harassment to continue, but they do not call out those that state they are just trying to address ethics as criminals, just misaligned and sometimes conspiracy theorists. Until there is proper legal case made to treat all of GG as criminals, WP cannot take that stance, period. --MASEM (t) 07:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Masem, this is an infeasible burden to place on a statement about any group endeavor on an encyclopedia. If we follow your suggestion, we would need a criminal conviction for each and every member of a group in order to make any colorable statement about the group itself. This from an insistence that we treat commonly understood and wikilinked terms as specific legal accusations simply because they have a negative connotation. Neither the unanimity this proposal demands nor the interpretation of terms used broadly across reliable sources can be supported. I should note that both of these elements to this proposal cut toward gamergate. Just as the months long discussion over how to consider sources beyond reliable sources in the totality of an article also circulated around a proposal whose core elements were more favorable to gamergate. Protonk (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No - you'd only need it for things that carry legal weight. There is no issue with the pressing calling GG out as a bunch of conspiracy theorists, because there's no laws against holding conspiracy theories (by itself). There's no issue calling the group misogynistic, or anti-feminism, or whatever (with appropriate sourcing). But as soon as you bring in terms that do have legal ramifications, that's where we have to be extremely careful when no case has been made, and absolutely make sure that it is a claim stated to sources and not a fact. This is what WP:LABEL states, so this is not anything new. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

To the extent that they have encouraged people to identify them with Gamergate, Masem’s friends Milo and Christina, upon whom he is apparently on first-name terms (how nice for him!) might indeed be said, by the many who regard Gamergate as a criminal conspiracy, as writers who are identified with a criminal conspiracy. I am skeptical that these people are chiefly identified with Gamergate. But this is not immediately relevant: my point is that if new, zombie, IP, and brigaded account demand that we reexamine every adjective in the article, the result will be a great deal of additional work, and may well be an article that is still more critical of Gamergate than the article we have today. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks. And the issue is simply that when we are using words that fall within the scope of WP:W2W that, to avoid NPOV and NOR, we are making sure that either the wording selection is completely obvious from the bulk of sources (such as describing the harassment as misogynistic) or that we include inline sources that use that wording if it is sufficiently but not obviously common, or that we quote or attribute in prose to the speaker if the word is only used by a single source. The OP here had a fair point that we had an unsourced sentence that used contentious languages, but sources were found to show that is the exact wording used and those sources were added. Most of the other sentences in the article have their own inline source, so this should not be an major issue. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The Implications

I posted this list not so much as a resource, but as a message: "Your recollection of the sources is faulty."

About half of the list is already cited in the article. 100% of the list is reliable enough to use on Misplaced Pages in some capacity. Reliability, as you well know, is always in a context. Some sources can be ruled out based on the publisher alone, but the reliability of even the flimsiest in the above list must take into account the nature of the claim. Then, there's the New York Times; let's start there.

"#GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage"
CNN? "a heated debate over journalistic integrity, the definition of video games and the identity of those who play them"
NPR? "#Gamergate is about two key things: ethics in video game journalism, and the role and treatment of women in the video game industry"

Tell me, is this the consensus of reliable mainstream sources that's being defended? Because when I look at this article, I see something different entirely. There's no question that mainstream reliable sources consider harassment the most important part of the story, but when it comes to how centrally harassment figures in the controversy, there's considerably less unity. Some describe a majority concerned with ethics and a minority that are misogynist. Others say it's the people concerned with ethics that are harassing due to their vociferousness. Some simply name ethics and harassment with equal weight. A lot say its impossible to tell. Even taking only the most reliable sources, or only taking left-leaning sources, you cannot escape nuance and ambiguity. From where, then, does this article draw the self-assuredness to open, "The Gamergate controversy concerns sexism in video game culture"?

WP:NPOV states, "All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (emphasis mine) The article as it stands does not even represent fairly, proportionately, or without bias the views contained in sources it already cites. At one place or another the article gives lip service to certain nuances, but this is inadequate. A revision is required, stem to stern, emphasizing impartiality, editorial distance, and the uncertain authorship of violent threats.

The specific ethical allegations, so far as reliable sources describe them, must be described in sufficiently complete terms for a reader to understand what these allegations are - not only that they are rejected by Gamergate's detractors. There is no justification to be found in WP:FRINGE to do otherwise. "Ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong." These views are central to an understanding of the topic. Usual notions of proportionality, false balance, or necessary assumptions must be significantly modulated with respect to views that are the subject of the article.

No specific edit is proposed here, and this can all be done with impeccable adherence to BLP. Those already preparing their straw men can just stow them. I'll be following up with specific edits as time goes on, but wanted to open the conversation with an explanation of why these changes are coming and are necessary. As WP:NPOV warns, "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."

Rhoark (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This is what I've been trying to argue for several months, and this post summarizes the issue very well. I've previously proposed a version (probably 3-4 months old) that simply was a re-arrangements of the existing sources primarily to group everything directly associated with "GG movement about ethics, and the criticism towards that" and then having a separate criticism of the harassment and larger culture war issues, and that was outright rejected for continued version that biased strongly against any objective coverage of GG even though it was possible with the RSes we had. As well as establishing the more conservative tone that is the middle point of all the possible claims of what GG is made up of from the various sources - that there's those involved in the call for ethics, that there's some that are using harassment as their tool, but the overlap of those two groups is not clear - it may be zero, it may be 100%, but most high RSes claim it's likely a minority of the first group that falls into the other. Again, no changes in sources, just adopting the objective, neutral, non-soapbox approach to this situation. --MASEM (t) 05:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you arguing that the article should state "Gamergate is about ethics, but most people don't think so" or "Most people think Gamergate is about harassment, but they claim ethics?" Is that an order change? Because I don't think that's true, nor that sources say that (ethics first over harassment). Most sources seem to say that it's about hating women first, hating people of color second, hating any other kind of social progressiveness third, and then trying to apply a veneer of sophistication (ethics!) overtop all of the previous in order to whitewash. What are you actually suggesting here?--Jorm (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The reason GG has any sort of notability is the continued harassment. There is no way that cannot be presented first and foremost, nor can we dismiss having a section that harshly criticizes the harassment tactics and why harassment is being seen as a tool for silencing the opposition. But that's all general facts that are hard to dismiss that have happened and commentary that exists far and wide. It is then how the controversy is presented after that point that becomes how an objective, neutral, impartial encyclopedia should "teach the controversy", in considering the breakdown of sources Rhoark provides. There is a side of GG - regardless of how much it has been considered secondary or conspiracy theories or a front for harassment - that claims to be about ethics in journalism, which while it cannot be documented to the letter that GGers would want to see it simply because we cannot violate NPOV/RS, it can be documented from the RSes listed above. Points about ethics issues have been presented in these RSes, but for the most part they have been determined inactionable (such as "objective reviews"); that doesn't mean we shouldn't cover them because as Rhoark said, this is not a FRINGE aspect, this is central to the controversy. All this is already in the article, but not organized in a manner that makes this clear. The organization, along with some wording choices, is aimed to sweep up any objective coverage of the GG claims that already exist in this RS list under the rug that comes from the weight of the charges involving harassment; this is through salting all the GG stance throughout the article so they are buried among negative statements towards this, which is a classic way of biasing any argument. Based on Rhoark's analysis and list above, I disagree that "most" sources - particularly when you narrow down to the most reliable sources - bury the ethics aspects. Some sources certainly do, but some talk about the ethics first and then the harassment. Or establish why this is a negative situation and then go into the ethics. WP should be taking the most conservative, median view here as a starting point, and then adding claims from the off-center points to expand how the controversy is seen in the press. --MASEM (t) 05:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source have found no ethical concerns that were well founded, grounded in reality, or anything other than a shield for threatening blameless software developers with injury, rape, and murder. Many, many reliable sources -- unimpeachable sources like the CJR and The New Yorker -- have found otherwise. This should not surprise us: groups seeking to reform newsroom practice do not often advance their cause by threatening to rape anyone -- especially not by threatening to rape people who aren't involved in journalism!

That Misplaced Pages is still discussing this is astonishing, and deeply dismaying.

Our article is already far too sympathetic to misogynistic harassment. Masem urges us to take "the most conservative...view" and then "add claims from the off-center points" -- an approach that would be a right-wing extremist's fever dream. The encyclopedic approach, quite clearly, is to express the consensus of the best and most authoritatively reliable sources. They agree without exception that the purported ethics concerns are unfounded, miasmic, vague, mistaken, or illusory, while the threats of rape, murder, and personal injury are, everyone agrees, repellent. (Masem just took this argument for a month-long expedition to WT:NPOV. After that huge discussion did not go his way, his promised dropping of that particular stick has apparently become inoperative.)

Misplaced Pages's continued indulgence of this disruptive and highly organized crusade to whitewash Gamergate's reputation is shameful, and its continuance long past the point when it's intent and malice has been made abundantly clear to all is a further shame -- and a very real threat to the project itself. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with MarkBernstein, the ethics is clearly marked as a figleaf for harassment in the RS. Presenting it "first and foremost" is UNDUE for what's going in in GG. We have covered the figleaf in detail; making it the keystone of the article is the FRINGE part of Rhoark & Masem theory about how GGC should be written. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi ForbiddenRocky, Many thanks for your comments. Looking through the list of sources above, and through those used in the article, I am not certain that "the ethics is clearly marked as a figleaf for harassment" is an accurate summary of them. Would it be possible for you to list the sources that you see supporting this? Thanks in advance. - Ryk72 22:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ryk72! Many, many thanks for your comments! Wow! The reality of "ethical" concerns was definitively dismissed by CJR early on -- they're the gold standard for analysis of ethics in journalism. No respectable sources have identified any genuine ethical concerns whatsoever, nor has any source explained how the ethical concerns, real or imagined, are addressed by threatening to maim, rape, or murder various software developers who happen to be women. So, no significant reliable source identifies any real and specific ethical concerns, and many, many sources dismiss those concerns as a fig leaf. But thanks for commenting again! Have an extra-special cuddly day! MarkBernstein (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This sentence and sentence's references pretty much cover it: "These purported concerns have been rejected by media critics and commentators as ill-founded and unsupported. Columbia Journalism Review, The Guardian, The Week, Vox, NPR's On the Media, Wired, Der Bund, and Inside Higher Ed, among others, stated that discussion of gender equality, sexism or other social issues in game reviews present no ethical issue." Admittedly I wouldn't use "figleaf" in the entry itself as I don't think any RS says it that way, but I think the idea is clear enough for the talk page. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"No specific edit is proposed here". Please suggest one.

"Your recollection of the sources is faulty." Um...

"As WP:NPOV warns" That goes both ways. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really seeing anything in the usable parts of sourcedump that really goes against the current article. As I mentioned above, it feels like a lot of blogs and very obscure sources were listed alongside the mainstream ones currently used in the article; and beyond that, it feels like the sections highlighted above involve a lot of cherry-picking. All of these sources have been discussed and debated extensively to get the article to where it is, and as someone who participated in a lot of that I'm mostly proud of how it went and confident that the current article reflects the gist of what the reliable sources say. "The specific ethical allegations" isn't something that any of the usable reliable sources really agree on; to the extent that they do, they describe it as a vague and implausible conspiracy about sinister feminist and progressive forces, which is, in fact, what the article touches on. --Aquillion (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting The Pinnacle of Whimsical Delight

Reddit is all aflutter today with news of this brave new gambit. The Gamergate boards call my attention to the following, which I wrote here on February 14 during a previous Gamergate offensive, but which remains just as pertinent today as when it was written -- because Gamergate keeps returning to the same unending and unproductive disruption. I wrote:

“The proposals discussed above move from remarkable to astonishing and now arrive at a pinnacle of whimsical delight. Are we now seriously proposing that NPOV should permit editors to disregard the consensus of reliable sources because those sources are involved? This directly contradicts WP:RS and renders WP:OR a dead letter. It guts WP:FRINGE utterly: every fringe belief is convinced that the established sources are biased against it. Or is this exemption only to apply to GamerGate? How are editors to know that GamerGate is exempt from WP:RS, but Scientology, Creation Science, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are not? Can any editor declare the reliable sources are all biased and require special scrutiny, or is this privilege reserved for special editors? In that case, how are newcomers to know that the instruction to disregard WP:RS in the supposed interest of WP:NPOV comes from a special editor who can authorize this? Can any group apply for a GamerGate exemption to WP:RS -- and if so, to whom do they send they petition? This is not a contribution to the encyclopedia; this discussion should be closed and should not be revisited until the preponderant judgment of reliable sources has clearly changed. If WP:CPUSH has any force at all, does it not apply here? This argument appears to be taken almost verbatim from section 2.3.3 of WP:FLAT.”

Now, has the preponderant judgment of reliable sources changed since February? Have new ethical concerns been raised, or acknowledged, or received wide coverage, or any coverage at all? No: if anything, recent coverage (Boston Magazine, ThinkProgress, The Hill) is more dismissive of the supposed concerns about journalism. Is the proposition that Gamergate concerns ethics in journalism less WP:FRINGE than in February? No. Is journalism central to Gamergate? Only if Gamergate's notable actions -- threatening to assault, rape, or murder women in computer science -- is understood to be a means of redressing grievances in journalism, a proposition that is the very model of the modern major general WP:FRINGE and one that, as best I can recall, no respectable (much less reliable) source has entertained.

Enough.MarkBernstein (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

If you're eager to relitigate old arguments, I suggest you do so on your blog. The issues I've raised are different. The pertinent question is not how sources have changed since February, but whether in that interval the article has ceased to be OWNed. I don't see that it has. Repeated reference is made to Misplaced Pages policies that there seems to be little interest in actually following. I have presented a shibboleth: Which editors are for following the sources, and which editors are for maintaining a maximally derogatory article by whatever arguments are expedient? Rhoark (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a specific edit you'd like to suggest? — Strongjam (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in due course. Rhoark (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

So make it. Otherwise this isn't productive. — Strongjam (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You have indeed presented a shibboleth, but ... (sorry, everyone, but opportunities like this don’t come every day!) I don’t think it means what you think it means. This appears to be WP:FORUM or WP:SOAPBOXING, perhaps intended for the offsite audience to which this has been advertised on 8chan and many reddits. As there's nothing new and nothing actionable, I'd like to request someone close this.MarkBernstein (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Rhoark, please Assume Good Faith; we're all here to write an encyclopedia and to produce an accurate article, even if we have different views on the world, different readings of sources, different interpretations of what they mean and so on. I've read your list of sources (naturally, I'm well-familiar with all of them!), and to me your interpretation of them is simply not convincing; you included many obscure, unreliable or fringe sources and many blogs, all from similar points of view, while weighing them against some of the most high-profile mainstream publications in the world. To use them the way you are suggesting we should would would be giving them WP:UNDUE weight. Likewise, your quotations and summaries read to me as cherry-picked; you took the few individual sentences from more reliable articles that could support your reading, and highlighted them. Those aspects are currently covered, but they're given the weight and prominence appropriate to their representation in reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It would be excellent if we could all proceed under the assumption of good faith, but I'm not a stranger to the storied history of this article and the editors active within it. Assumptions are for when there is no prior knowledge. I'm beyond assuming anything. I'm not bothering with casting aspersions. I'm putting cards on the table, and those I have in mind can hold or fold. There are edits coming, lots of them, but not until they are organized, researched, and article-ready. This article came back to my attention through an unexpected ping, and quality takes time. I've learned that assumption of good faith will not be extended to me, so I will not share premature thoughts to be spun into strawmen. In the meantime, there are still meta-objections to discuss. I've stated that all of the listed sources are reliable for some use. I stand by the excerptions I have made as the most direct and pertinent answers each article offers to the two selected questions. You dispute these claims, but not with specifics. Some of these sources may inform my future edits, so it could save time to hash them out now. Or such concerns could be completely orthogonal to the claims I end up citing, and the exercise would be a waste. Participation is at your discretion. Rhoark (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Well thanks for announcing your intentions to make edits, but I'm not sure what use that is. Make edits when you're ready and if other editors have issues with those edits then it will be discussed. What are you looking to get out of this discussion? — Strongjam (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think I've been pretty specific about my objections (especially to sources that I don't feel are usable; I've listed them specifically.) You haven't really answered any of that, you've just said that you want to use these sources. We've discussed all of those blogs and sources specifically in the past; we can go over them one by one if you want. I definitely oppose using TechCrunch, metaleater, and CinemaBlend as sources when so many higher-profile and higher-quality ones are available; it would be giving them WP:UNDUE weight to focus on them. Most of the blogs you listed don't strike me as noteworthy beyond what's currently in the article. In general, though, you obviously have to try and reach consensus for any significant changes; you have to be willing to engage with as least most of the people here and extend them a degree of trust, or we're never going to get anywhere at all. Anyway, since you invited implicitly invited me to provide more specifics, I will place my comments on each of your sources and your interpretation of them after their place in your list. --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That does not seem unreasonable for you or anyone interested to mark up the list items, if signed. Rhoark (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I've inserted comments where I think they're relevant. Apologizes for dropping them into your list, but since you want specific objections and discussion for each of the sources you listed, this seems like the most reasonable way to divide it up and avoid it devolving into just sweeping generalities. I've highlighted both sources I don't feel we can use, and areas where I feel you focused too much on one aspect of a source while ignoring the rest. Please respond to my concerns on each source before you use that source (or your interpretation or reading of it) in a rewrite; we've discussed all these sources before (I'm fairly sure we even discussed them with you), but it would be better to at least make sure we're all on the same page with regards to how everyone views them. Some objections (like opinion-posts from obscure sources) come up several times, so you might want to explain why you think we need to use those here rather than after each one; that's up to you. Even for the sources that are generally-usable and your summary is decent, I might have have additional objections later on based on how you use them and how much prominence you give a particular source (or an aspect from a particular source), but that will have to wait until you make more specific proposals. --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, after going over them, my own reading of what the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say (excluding the sources I indicated to not really be usable): GamerGate caused a large amount of harassment of women in the industry, and this is the main focus of the vast majority of articles. GamerGate started with a campaign of harassment against Zoe Quinn based on a false accusation about her (and expanded to cover other women); this history is the second main focus of coverage, and is mostly uncontroversial history. GamerGate is a culture war over the future of games and the changing face of gaming. Some people say that it is about fighting for one variety of ethics or another, but this claim is controversial at best (in sources that don't go into competing claims) and outright dismissed by many of the most reliable sources. The sources that talk about it in depth indicate that the accusations are contradictory, amorphous, and (when there is any detail) often clearly false; most sources characterize them as a conspiracy theory of some variety. (Even some of the blogs I dismissed describe it as a conspiracy, albeit more as a "conspiracy fact" rather than a "conspiracy theory.") There is almost universal agreement among those that discuss politics that GamerGate is a pushback against progressivism; one or two of the blogs you cited disagree with this, but even there, again, most of them agree, they just take the perspective that it needs to be pushed back. That looks, roughly, like what the article currently says; we have section on each of those aspects, with weight appropriate to their coverage in reliable sources, and generally pretty good sourcing overall. What's your specific objection? --Aquillion (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with about 90% of this assessment, there is a fact missing that is clear in the most reliable sources: there are two different groupings when the word GG is used: there is the users of the hashtag, some which use it for harassment, and there is GG the movement that has expressed ethics concerns. The overlap or common composition of these two groups is vague and unknown to these sources, so the highest reliable sources do not attempt to attribute the illegal activity of harassment to the movement/ethics supporters though do express that they are creating the situation where harassment is not discouraged or in fact encouraged. Our article does not make that distinction and treats the movement the same as the GG hashtag users, and thus prejudges the entire group as guilty of a crime, which WP absolutely cannot do. We should also not be prejudging the ethics group based on the dismissed claims - as Rhoark has pointed out, no matter how much a claim has been dismissed by reliable sources, it is still WP's role to document those to the best of our abilities (which we can with the current sources and without violating UNDUE). We should be making the same assumptions that the highest sources have made, that it is difficult to separate who is harassing, who is just using the hash tag, and who is arguing for ethics, and give those that are engaging is legal free speech (the ethics sans harassment) the appropriate objective treatment we have given to the victims and not presume they have done anything wrong. Several sources explain the situation as a debate about ethics that has been sidetracked by harassment, which is a very conservative, non-judgemental approach. We still focus first and foremost on the historical facts - harassment has happened, the victims have had to take actions, there's attempts to go after the harassers - and we still need to give due weight to the amount of criticize of the use of harassment and how it ties to a culture war. It is simply that we should be covering the GG movement in a non-judgement, objective manner to explain their points, how their points have subsequently been dismissed by the press at large, and how the unorganized movement is not helping their cause. All this information is in the article, already supported by the RSed, but not written in the tone or organization that presents this more academic approach to the topic and following more closely the less-aggressive stance of the more reliable sources on the matter. And that requires a thoughtful and slow rewriting process, so it's not just a few changes, so it's difficult to beg one for "what edits do you want made". --MASEM (t) 02:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no GG movement outside the hashtag because there is no organisation and there are no leaders. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Masem, you've been told you can't use your OR for this. And it is OR, because the RS do not support your position. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no OR here. This is a summary of what the sources says - the users of the hashtag, the harassers, and the movement are treated as different aspects but with possible (and perhaps fully 100%) crossover. They make it clear that the ethics people are likely not harassing but they aren't helping the situation that much. EG from NYTimes "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." . It makes it clear the harassers are not necessarily the same as the ethics. WA POst "That isn’t to say that everyone flying the #Gamergate banner is sexist/racist/crazy, and that isn’t to say there aren’t some decent arguments about journalism ethics being made. But whatever voices of reason may have existed, at some point, have been totally subsumed by the mob." (And the last sentence there is the criticism I've said should still be in the article to say that any reasonable attempt to talk while flying the GG flag has been tainted) --MASEM (t) 06:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

no academic sourrce has ever given the slightest credence to Gamergate's purported concern for "ethics", because no academic source, or any source at all, can explain what threatening to rape software developers could accomplish in reforming journalism. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Mark, I believe you just proved Rhoark's point. As I'm sure you know, few academic sources have written about Gamergate. But as it turns out, it's actually quite possible to give credence to Gamergate's ethical concerns without justifying rape threats. Case in point, one of the few referenced academic articles, from the Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies, is quite interesting. You should read it, because from your comment it appears that perhaps you have not. Here's a direct quote from the paper: " has become a focal point for a range of grievances in game culture, but ethics in game journalism and the role of women in games and game culture are the most prominent and polarizing. For those concerned with the role of women in games the movement, which has been repeatedly linked to cybermobs harassing female game critics and -makers, has itself become proof that games and gamers are sexist. For those troubled by corruption and politicization of the games industry, #gamergate is a much needed grassroots movement." The authors discuss how Gamergate is actively pursuing ethical goals: "#gamergate has, among others, resulted in a sub-campaign called 'Operation Digging DiGRA' in which gamers band together to read through game studies papers to demonstrate that the research on gaming is actually ideologically compromised activism that aims to impose a censorial content control on games." Toward the end of the article, the authors actually call Gamergate a consumer group: "Last but not least, in the case of #gamergate, they remain a large and wealthy consumer group. This of course underlines the old insight from power politics: Whatever the discourse, money talks." Now for the NPOV part. The current Misplaced Pages article uses only a single out-of-context sentence from that well-balanced and neutral paper to prove that Gamergate has "anti-feminist ideologies" (which is borderline original research -- the paper says absolutely nothing about feminism). Can you see the problem now? The other academic papers, "Sexism in the circuitry" from the Association for Computing Machinery and "A Conspiracy of Fishes, or, How We Learned to Stop Worrying About #GamerGate and Embrace Hegemonic Masculinity" from the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, are behind a pay wall. I'm unashamed to announce that I have not read either of those articles, though I'd love to see what kind of credence they give to Gamergate's ethical concerns. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You are mistaken. That's not an academic article, it's an editorial (as it says at the top). It cannot be cited for statements of fact, only used to illustrate an opinion. In this case you should probably be thankful that it is only an editorial, though! Even as far as its opinion goes, I think you're misreading it; it notes that "The success of #gamergate and #operationdiggingdigra is debatable, as is their intent" and goes on to explicitly state that "in the case of #gamergate, it is the explicit goal of many of the participants to exclude groups of people, particularly women, from the debate and from the game industry and limit women’s rights as citizens." It also states that "In light of this, how should we address the antidemocratic voices of #gamergate?" In context, it fits in with what the Misplaced Pages article currently says -- that there are people who claim GamerGate is about ethics (for a variety of different, often contradictory and poorly-expressed definitions of 'ethics', generally centered around a belief that there is some sort of progressive / feminist conspiracy among game designers and / or the gaming media), but that that claim is generally not taken seriously, with writers who have analyzed it in depth finding many people behind it to be instead primarily driven by a desire to use the hashtag as a platform to advance an ideological agenda. In the case of that paper, say they specifically identify the agenda behind many people in GamerGate as an attempt to "exclude groups of people, particularly women, from the debate and from the game industry and limit women’s rights as citizens" and as "anti-democratic" (note that they don't couch this part in he-said, she said the way they do the parts you quoted -- they state this as fact.) Those are pretty strong words, but that's just me quoting what it says; like I said, you should probably be thankful it is just an editorial! --Aquillion (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Request close

As there is no specific content proposal, I suggest this section be closed as WP:DEADHORSE . I also suggest that any major re-writes be proposed in the draft space first. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Support close per no content change suggested. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to see this section bring about some actual suggestions for changes to our article- this broad discussion makes it very hard to pick up on the exact things those posting would like changed (or not) in the article. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 18:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose If you can't discuss policy without a concrete proposal at hand, here's a proposal: Change the first sentences of the lede to "The Gamergate controversy is a set of interrelated debates about gender, censorship, and journalistic integrity. It widely known for the online harassment directed at multiple participants, particularly Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian". Rhoark (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be UNDUE. So no to that edit. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Obviously impossible. Moreover, to call Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian participants in the Gamergate Controversy suggests that they chose to participate. In neither case is this apparently true, and in the case of Zoe Quinn is it both known to be a lie and is a libel. Does anyone remember this use of Misplaced Pages as a murder threat? Please redact and call oversight to expunge. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous histrionics. "Participant" does not connote willingness, and even if it did you'd be stuffing words in my mouth with a crowbar. Here's a better intro anyway: "The Gamergate controversy is a set of interrelated debates about gender, censorship, and journalistic integrity. The most widely publicized aspect of the controversy are the violent threats made against Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, among others. Such threats are believed to come from a tiny minority of participants on both sides of the debate." Rhoark (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

As a suggestion for a re-write of the intro, that is a: No. Not even close to representing what the reliable sources have found notable and worth covering.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Participation & Lede change

Participation means taking part and is always volitional. Again, you second suggestion is risible. "Tiny minority" is by its nature unprovable; for all practical purposes, since the only notable activity of Gamergate is its threats of rape, murder, and mayhem, the only notable participants are the people sending those threats -- and so ALL of Gamergate is involved in the harassment. I know of no evidence whatsoever that Gamergate opponents have threatened to murder Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn. Please stop this. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Did anyone say Gamergate opponents have threatened to murder Sarkeesian or Quinn? I know I didn't say that. I don't think any RS's have said that. RS's have certainly documented death, rape, and bomb threats from Gamergate opponents. Only unreliable blogs come close to even implying that every last one of the 10's of thousands of gaters are involved in harassment. In fact, "small minority" is a phrase used quite often. Just what sources are you relying on for your information? Rhoark (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall any reliable source that reports that any specific Gamergate supporter files a police report regarding threats comparable to those reported by Gamergate's victims. Because the only notable activity of Gamergate has been its threats of rape, murder, and mayhem, the only notable participants are the people sending those threats. Gamergate does not have official members or adherents; a Gamergate supporter can only be known as such because they support Gamergate's notable actions, to wit, misogynistic harassment. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

On what sources do you base the assertion that all, or even most, Gamergate supporters are involved in harassment? Rhoark (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

What article content are you wishing to add, modify or remove? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I propose (a slight c.e. of my last suggestion) that the first sentences of the lede be altered to

"The Gamergate controversy is a set of interrelated debates about gender, censorship, and journalistic integrity. The most widely publicized aspects of the controversy have been the violent threats made against Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Such threats against these and other individuals are believed to come from a small minority of participants on either side of the debate."

I would not ordinarily begin with the lede in rehabilitating an article, but under duress I've offered this suggestion off the cuff. Even so, there has not been a credible rebuttal to this suggestion. Besides Mark Bernstein's murky comments, it has been claimed that the proposed edit is either UNDUE or not reflective of the reliable sources. That has been the response, even within this section establishing exactly this type of language as being what the most reliable sources have chosen to use. Rhoark (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• strong oppose the suggested wording grossly fails to represent the reliable sources which, not surprisingly do not consider relentless misogynistic harassment campaigns as "discussions" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Which sources? As I have pointed out, this description is consistent with reporting in The New York Times, New York Magazine, The New Yorker, NPR, CNN, CJR, The Washington Post, and Al Jazeera. There's also Pacific Standard, Vox, Forbes, Slate, Nieman Reports, TechCrunch, Spiked, Reason, RealClearPolitics, Metaleater, CinemaBlend, Polygon, Adam Smith Institute, and Daily Caller. Sources running the "ethics are a smokescreen" angle include Wired, Ars Technica, Jezebel, and Boston Globe - making a minority opinion and still differing from my suggestion only in terms of emphasis rather than outright contradiction. Rhoark (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

As pointed out multiple times above, even the sources that you have cherrypicked do not support your interpretation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Nothing of the kind has been pointed out. What has been pointed out is that 1) The sources emphasize the importance of harassment, which I believe my suggestion states explicitly. 2) Many of the arguments are motivated by a position in the "culture war", which would be a fine thing to go into in the subsequent sentences. Rhoark (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Strong oppose: In the wildly unlikely event that this ever appeared as Misplaced Pages's opinion on Gamergate, it would instantly be the subject of scorn and derision. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It already is the subject of scorn and derision, and that's not a policy-based argument. Rhoark (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

there is a clear difference between being the subject of scorn and derision by people who matter and are respected for their opinions and being the subject of scorn and derision by people who dont know what "ethics" means. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not judge people in that manner, that is a non-starter. --MASEM (t) 04:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course we judge sources upon whether or not they understand basic concepts that they are utilizing. You personally might decide to give weight to opinions of a horde of harassers who have no concept of what "ethics" means, and that is just fine if that is how you want to structure your personal ethics. On Misplaced Pages, however, we do not care nor give weight to nonsensical views in relation to presenting the content that is widely supported by actual reliable sources - like those analysts who actually understand what "ethics" means. You need to stop pushing your gamergate apologetics viewpoint against those sources because of some special personal knowledge that you claim to possess. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

How many personal attacks do editors have to endure before you are topic banned? Didn't arbcom discuss this about you? Please stop. --DHeyward (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Where did I say anything about sources? I am talking about editors' attitudes and opinions that are the basis of trying to soapbox the issue. If an editor can in, insisted that all GGERS are murderers and refused to move off that base, that would be disruptive. Note that no source says that GG ers do not know what "ethics" mean - the ethics concerns raised have claimed to be in actionable or not true, but not that they aren't invalid use of the word ethics. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Masem, I believe you are mistaken. For example, is quite clear that, while Gamergate insists ethics are their chief focus, they aren't: "You guys know as well as I do that a movement based on the stated goal of regaining gaming ground lost to feminists and so-called SJWs would not do very well from a PR perspective. But you’re in a bind, because other than that, the ethics charges are all you’ve got and they happen to be (1) 98 percent false; (2) complicated to follow for the layperson; and (3) pretty clearly a ruse given the underlying ideology of the folks pushing this line forward." Read the whole piece -- there's lots of detail on ethics claims. The CJR piece is definitive and similarly dismissive. No valid ethical complaint has been advanced, and no notable action of Gamergate could reasonably be expected to advance any grievance regarding journalistic ethics. A close reading of TRPoD also reveals no hint of a personal attack; he is refuting (again) the constantly-iterated and endlessly refuted argument that one editor's expert knowledge of Gamergate motives should be used to unskew the consensus of reliable source." MarkBernstein (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for referencing some sources; however, they do not support the positions you have taken. Singal alleges that ethics issues are a ruse, but a ruse for fighting the culture war, not for harassing women. The culture war business is different from journalistic integrity, but still an argument about ethics in a different domain. This is something I accounted for in my proposed edit, placing "gender" and "censorship" ahead of "journalistic integrity" in describing what Gamergate is about. Singal also contextualizes his dismissal of the journalism angle with his defense of the JournoList, of which he was a member. This makes it clear that what he writes should be attributed as opinion and should not have overriding weight in the lede. CJR is mostly summarizing the spectrum of reporting, with the thesis that it's difficult to tell just what's going on. It says ethics issues have been debunked by way of summarizing two articles. The first is in Ars Technica, where Kyle Orland says his mailings to GameJournoPros were errors in judgement and "crossed the line", but disputes that what he said influenced other journalists. The fact there was smoke but no fire doesn't mean criticisms were unjustified or insincere. The other source that CJR links is Kotaku editor Stephen Tolito sharing his opinion that Nathan Grayson did not act improperly. That's an opinion that should be in the article for sure, but we have sources explicitly saying the Grayson issue is much smaller than the totality of ethics allegations. Rhoark (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That is nor what I said. There is a huge difference between taking the ethics claims if GG as invalid (which is reasonable for us to include per sources) and assuming GG do not know what a word means, implying stupity. No source has claimed GG as not knowing what ethics means, only that their ethics ideals are flawed. Starting from the assumption that GG are stupid is a nonstarter.--MASEM (t) 18:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• To me, these anti-intellectual players, who want games to be “just games” and want criticism of them to be devoid of things like political and social context, are almost as worrisome as the horrifying, and criminal, actions of the harassers. If not directly stupid, anti-intellectual as to be as dangerous to society as massive harassment campaigns.
• 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). either stupid or completely hypocritical.
• And yet Alexander's piece — and others like it — has taken on a central role in the larger narrative #GamerGaters tell themselves about why they're fighting, despite the fact that they've completely and utterly misread it. Incapable of interpreting a straightforward article correctly.
• And lets not forget what the incomparable Kluwe had to say about that "Dear #Gamergaters, Do you know why you piss me the fuck off? Because you’re lazy. You’re ignorant. You are a blithering collection of wannabe Misplaced Pages philosophers, drunk on your own buzzwords, incapable of forming an original thought. You display a lack of knowledge stunning in its scope, a fundamental disregard of history and human nature so pronounced that makes me wonder if lead paint is a key component of your diet. You think you’re making piercing arguments when, in actuality, you’re throwing a temper tantrum that would embarrass a three-year-old. ... Thus, when I see an article titled “Gamers are dead,” referring to the death of the popular trope of a pasty young man in a dimly lit room, it fills me with joy, because it means WE FUCKING WON. So many people are playing games now that they are popular culture. ...You slopebrowed weaseldicks with zero reading comprehension and even less critical thinking skills who think an article claiming “Gamers are dead” is something bad? Fuck me sideways with a sandblaster. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you proposing to use this combination of sources to support the claim Gamergaters are stupid? I believe that would be WP:SYNTH. Rhoark (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

(EC)Medium.com is not a reliable source as an SPS and obvious an opinion piece so that one doesn't apply; Of the others, they do criticize the chain of thought and logical fallacies of GGers which I don't question, but that's far different from calling them as "not knowing what 'ethics' mean" or stupid. To say otherwise is soapboxing or original research, or otherwise against policy. --MASEM (t) 04:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Well clearly Masem, WE KNOW these are widely held beliefs and so even if medium.com is not a reliable source that we can use to call poop sock sniffers, poop sock sniffers we need to write the article accommodate the white spaces that the reliable sources are not covering so that the stupidity of the claims of gamergaters is not hidden. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a very big difference between calling the claims of GG stupid (which I could argee you can probably find some support in sources), and calling the people of GG stupid, which is not at all supported by sources, and would be a violation of NOR, NPOV, and SOAPBOXing. It is a significant difference to understand for proper consensus building. --MASEM (t) 05:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess you are right Masem. People who make stupid claims, even multiple stupid claims, even repeatedly and even after the stupidity of the claims has been demonstrated are not necessarily stupid. They are just.... wellllll, gamergaters. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Where claims seem particularly stupid, take care to examine whether the claims are being described by their proponents or their opponents. Claims about gamers hating politics are generally straw men. Pillars of Eternity asked hard questions about abortion and medical ethics. The Twitter outrage machine only cared there was a joke about a transvestite. Deus Ex was ahead of its time in commenting about income inequality and government surveillance. It's been frequently voted as the best PC game of all time. Critics are upset that the next installment will explore racism through the well-worn scifi trope of using robots/cyborgs/aliens/etc as a stand-in for actual minorities. Gamers adore Thief and Dishonored for offering the challenging option of a completely non-violent play-through, but reject Thompson-esque moral panic about violence in general. This is the sort of thing that gamers mean when they say they don't like politics. There are some RS's that deal with these incidents individually and tangentially, but stitching them together would be SYNTH. As far as I know, this dynamic hasn't received the coherent unified exploration it deserves. May another editor is aware of such a source? Or Auerbachkeller (talk · contribs) could come to the rescue and write one ;) Rhoark (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

One could look at the actual claims being made. I would suggest buying a gallon or two of Visine first, your eyes will never feel clean again, but eye drops by the buckeloat will help some. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that phrase means what you think it means. QED. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding reliability and due weight

The commentary added to the above sources seems to fall in two groups: expanding the quotations to capture some nuances that might have been missing, and reservations about due weight of opinions. The first set seem perfectly reasonable, but don't really alter the larger equation. When it comes to editorial opinion sources, I have a few points to make.

• Reliability and due weight are two different policies. There are inevitably going to be a lot of reliably attributable opinions that just don't make it into the article for one reason or another. However, the requirements of NPOV are first and foremost about the range of views rather than the range of sources. If we go through all the small outlets one by one and say "nope, not due weight" we can go through the whole pile that way. At the end of the day, some representative samples of significant viewpoints still have to be selected.
• This is not the same as giving weight to views in unreliable sources. This is about reliable sources. Proportional weight can be smaller, but it can't be zero.
• Unreliable sources can not be used as a source of material, but they can be used to guide editorial decisions about how to use sourced material. Reactions and republications of minor reliable opinion pieces in unreliable media could easily help determine which ones are most representative of significant viewpoints.
• Whether or not a claim is opinion is often fuzzy. A piece marked as opinion can present facts in support of its argument, and factual reporting can have emotive interjections. It's up to editors to determine the context.
• Size and notability of a publication are part of reliability, but so is expertise. Game publications, technology publications, political publications, etc. bring to bear domain expertise that a generalist newspaper doesn't have. Smaller publications can be the best for certain matters of fact, as well as describing points of view.
• A publication's circulation is also not the only driver for due weight. Some aspects of the topic are simply too complicated or not interesting to a general audience. Misplaced Pages should not subsume encyclopedic interest entirely to the weighting decisions of newspapers, because Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTNEWS.
• On the whole, most of the views that need to be present are present, but they are not presented neutrally. Mostly this is through WP:STRUCTURE, but also through overgeneralization in summarizing sources. The overall effect is that the article fails to explain sides, while also appearing to take a side - opposite of what WP:NPOV prescribes.

Rhoark (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Proportional weight can be smaller, but it can't be zero Yes it can. We're not required to include every opinion about all matters in some form as WP:UNDUE and WP:V make clear. — Strongjam (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, I have never at any time made any false allegations in The Guardian. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I've redacted. — Strongjam (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't take a "side" - the article presents what the situation. some people affiliated with GG have made claims such as "but ethics!" - the reliable sources have reviewed the claims and laughed them off the stage. to report that some farcical claims have been made and no one takes them seriously is not "taking sides" when that is what has happened. It is reporting with appropriate WP:NPOV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Proportional weight can indeed be zero. In fact, it very often is. Per WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" (emphasis in original), and "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." If you cannot name prominent adherents of a view, it is inappropriate to cite obscure ones simply for the sake of "balance". In fact, doing so is a violation of WP:VALID. Therefore, we probably cannot cite them for statements of opinion without giving them undue weight, and we certainly cannot use them to inform the structure of the entire article or the phrasing of the lead, the way you are requesting. As far as using them as a source for facts goes, that's even worse; WP:V states that "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." WP:RSOPINION states something similar. Given that the core of WP:RS is that articles should be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and that none of the sources I dismissed really seem to meet that standard, it seems trivially absurd to suggest that we could use an opinion piece for them as a basis for statements of fact -- the issue is not size or circulation (though those are sometimes correlated to this), the issue is that they lack an established reputation. Anyone can create a small start-up news site to publish fringe articles, but until they've built a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, their site will not be a reliable source on Misplaced Pages. From your posts, I've gathered that you don't trust the mainstream media, and I can sympathize with that to an extent. But for the most part, an encyclopedia is not the appropriate place to push back against that and try to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS; we reflect the mainstream consensus among reliable sources, touching on minority views to the extent that we can find reliable sources covering them (but from a perspective that makes it clear that it is the minority view, without giving it equal validity under WP:VALID). WP:FRINGE viewpoints for which there are no prominent reliable sources are not covered at all. (Again, I'll point out that for the most part, the positions you're talking about already are covered in the article; they're just covered from the perspective that they're a minority view among reliable sources, which has to be reflected in the entire article structure per WP:UNDUE.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I clearly did not qualify my statement enough. There can obviously be many circumstances where the due weight of a view is zero. However, the aggregate weight of dozens of low-weight sources saying similar things is not zero - especially when they are elaborating on views that sources like CJR and NPR thought was worth at least mentioning. The view is significant, even if any single publisher is not. As for the rest, its highly contextual, but I think you're giving far too little credit in particular to TechCrunch and RealClearPolitics w.r.t. their reputation for accuracy. Rhoark (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

the aggregate weight of no weight sources is zero. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Paraphrase

In the hashtag section, which was beginning to look like a heap of scare quotes, I've replaced a couple of the most egregious instances with brief paraphrases. I've also fixed one instance where the misogynistic attacks on Quinn, etc, are mischaracterised as "coordinated discussions." --TS 13:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It would probably not hurt to review all quotes to make sure that there is prose directly attributing the source as to avoid the appearance of scare quotes (quotes when no inline prose attribution is give), either adding the inline attribution or paraphrasing. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, so I took a look at the first few quotations in the article. My first impression is that the current revision contains far too many quoted phrases where a simple statement of fact, or at worst an attributed paraphrase, would serve better. I may give the article a going over if I find the time. --TS 14:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

DeepFreeze value as an EL

-gate Clarification

new articles

• http://www.themarysue.com/phd-in-gamergate/
• http://www.ibtimes.com/e3-2015-gamergate-still-casts-shadow-gaming-industry-would-prefer-you-forget-about-it-1967194 (Can someone explain IBT's journalism model to me?)

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure I can explain their journalism model, but these might help: International Business Times, Newsweek, and IBT Media. — Strongjam (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Maturization of videogames, if that's a real word

The word is "maturation". Rhoark (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Antifeminism

The editorial from the Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies is being used as a citation to state that "Gamergate has been described as involving anti-feminist ideologies." I removed this citation, and my edit was reverted. The editorial never mentions the ideology of feminism. It says: "the explicit goal of many of the participants to exclude groups of people, particularly women, from the debate and from the game industry and limit women’s rights as citizens." This is not the same as "opposition to feminism" which is the narrow definition of antifeminism. Stating that "excluding groups of people, particularly women" = "opposing the ideology of feminism" is original research. Women ≠ Feminism. Sexism or antidemocratic (the term used in the article) would be the more appropriate term to use. Note, I am not asking that we remove this sentence from the article, and it appears that other references have been added to bolster the sentence. I am only claiming that using this reference as evidence that Gamergate is described as having an antifeminist ideology is incorrect. This is why I removed the reference again. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I reverted it again. The reference may not directly say anti-feminism, but it with the vice reference can reasonably be paraphrased taht way. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

For context, previously discussed here. The main defining attribute of feminism is equal rights for women. "Anti-feminist ideologies" is a fair summary of "limiting womens' rights as citizens". — Strongjam (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Raises concerns of WP:SYNTH - Ryk72 23:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

How so? Limiting womens rights as citizens is pretty much the dictionary definition of anti-feminist ideology. — Strongjam (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this reading; it's a reasonable paraphrase. Rhoark (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

No concerns of WP:SYNTH at all. The nature of paraphrase is that we substitute synonyms and summarize positions. To say that "The main defining attribute of feminism is equal rights for women" is no more synthesis than to say that supporters of (say) George W. Bush are Republicans, that the Pope is Catholic. or the Marais is in Paris. Good grief~ MarkBernstein (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

We have plenty of reliable sources stating that Gamergate opposes the ideology of feminism, where it is stated explicitly without the requirement of synonyms. The article never mentions feminism. Why not just keep the stronger sources to support that sentence? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"Why not just keep the stronger sources to support that sentence?" because when that happens, then people complain about things not being sourced well enough. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. ColorOfSuffering may have a point that our summary doesn't accurately represent the source. I mean, the source does say "women"—twice, even!—and then it mentions the primary goal of feminism. I think a better summary would be "Gamergate has been described as involving anti-feminist, anti-woman, and anti-democratic ideologies as it transparently seeks to restrict women's rights, censor ideological opponents, and bar them from the games industry". I think that's a fair summary of the above quote. Woodroar (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's not a pa~rticularly strong source - it's an editorial, so opinion, and it requires synthesis of the actual content of the source with "The main defining attribute of feminism is equal rights for women" to support the article text it's being used for. - Ryk72 23:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Then we can go with Woodroar's suggestion. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Raises questions of WP:UNDUE - Ryk72 23:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice the long list of citations for the next sentence; many (even most) of them apply to the sentence you're referring to. I've moved a few up to make it clearer, but that sentence is well-cited (and carefully worded to make it clear that we're reporting their opinion rather than stating it as fact, of course.) Truthfully, if anything it should go into more detail, since the fact that a large number of high-profile commentators from reputable, mainstream sources have described GamerGate as containing or being driven by anti-feminist ideologies is extremely well-sourced. (Obviously not everyone agrees, but the section goes into that, too, and covers the various noteworthy perspectives with regards to people who say that the anti-feminists involved in GamerGate are just exploiting it, etc.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It is an editorial, so I don't see it as a particularly good source. Giving that much space to an opinion would be fairly undue. If we were to go that route we there are certainly other quotes from the editorial that can be added to the article. Such as "For those troubled by corruption and politicization of the games industry, #gamergate is a much needed grassroots movement." Or this good question: "Is this merely an outcry from people with conservative, one might say reactionary, values, masked in scientific rhetoric, or do they in fact, as they themselves claim, have different knowledge or expertise which is not taken into account in science or policy?" ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

First, what it says has to be taken in the context of what other reliable sources say; we mention the anti-feminist description because it's something many high-profile commentators are in agreement on. Second, quotes have to be taken in the context of the entire piece; pulling a rhetorical question out of context is misrepresenting a source. The overall thrust of all four of the sources currently cited in that section clearly indicates that the authors agree on the fact that GamerGate is driven by anti-feminism. Third, what you're trying to read into it is already in the article (and, in fact, cited to better sources); we do discuss the debates over ethics allegations and the belief some people have in an unethical conspiracy among reviewers to focus on progressive social issues. But sources have to be read as a whole; that editorial, for instance, is clearly dismissive of that as a justification, since it weighs the two claims against each other, then says definitively that GamerGate is "anti-woman" and "anti-democratic." (Note in particular that it says that many within GamerGate are explicitly out to limit women's rights -- as in, it says that it is their stated goal.) I think that among the various sources it is a bit more strident than most in that regard, but that general dismissal -- not just of the ethics claims, but dismissal of the claim that ethics is actually what is driving the people who were most active under the hashtag -- is near-universal across reliable sources that go into any depth on the subject, including ones that are not editorials; so that's how we have to write the section that covers the sinister-unethical-conspiracy allegations. The majority of reliable sources that have gone into depth of GamerGate's goals and ideology -- the ones who have tried to figure out what it's about rather than just reporting that everything is controversial -- have come to the conclusion that, while it is big and complicated, it is ultimately driven by culture-warriors using it to score points in an ideological crusade against people they disagree with (or people they want out of "their" hobby), particularly progressivism and feminism. Therefore, while we can and do note that it is controversial and that some people disagree, that is the perspective our article needs to present as mainstream. --Aquillion (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're getting at, and it's entirely reasonable. I disagree that the editorial reaches a particularly "strident" conclusion, but maybe that's because I don't see "anti-democratic" as being a particularly evocative word. It's a term of importance to those who study in the fields of public understanding, engagement and participation. To me, it appears that the authors deliberately avoided inflammatory terms like: harassment, misogyny, antifeminism, conspiracy, anti-woman, death threats, thuggish, criminal, hate group, et cetera. Also, I don't see the part where the article is "dismissive" of Gamergate's supposed focus on ethics. An actual quote might help me there. "Excluding groups of people" and "ethics in game journalism" are not mutually exclusive so far as I understand it. Different individuals in a group could reasonably hold both views with equal sincerity, could they not? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, and you're free to insert content to that effect if you can get reliable sources for it. Otherwise it's just WP:OR. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times has described Gamergate as "this year’s antifeminist activist campaign":

“A lot of it was me dealing with ‘gamergate’ folks,” he said in an interview, referring to this year’s antifeminist activist campaign by some video game enthusiasts. “I’m like: ‘God, I’m wasting my life. Why am I spending time on this? There are so many other things I could be doing.’”

See . MarkBernstein (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, from New York Magazine:

“Just about everyone in there who spoke openly expressed how mad and frustrated they were that progressive politics and feminism were impinging on gaming, which they saw as an area they had enjoyed, free of politics, forever. They were extremely open about this. A day or so later, another gamergater, @Smilomaniac, asked me to read a blog post he’d written about his involvement in the movement in which he explicitly IDs as anti-feminist, and notes that while some people claim otherwise, he thinks GG is an anti-feminist movement. (He later added, via Twitter, “You're not distinguishing between feminism and 3rd wave radscum which is what ‘we’ dislike ;/ " — the clarification is appreciated.)”

New York Magazine on antifeminism. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Perfect! Those are very high-quality sources that use the word "antifeminism" to describe Gamergate! You should add them to the sentence, though I feel there are quite a few sources there already. I'm not sure why you posted this links. I completely agree that high quality reliable sources have called Gamergate an antifeminist movement. My only point is that the editorial appearing in the Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies never discusses feminism. The fact that it's an opinion, and that it requires "synonyms" makes it a lower-quality source. I felt it should be removed. Others disagreed. At this point I'm more than happy to cede the point and move on to other topics. Thanks for the fruitful discussion! ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That quote brings up an important point that there is not a singular definition of feminism or anti-feminism. While the main point of this thread is that describing opposition to women's rights as anti-feminist is a fair paraphrase, we should not equivocate in the opposite direction when a source calls something anti-feminist. We should take care to understand exactly what the source meant to denote. Rhoark (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

New essay/opinion from David Auerbach

Note: making sure this is clearly stated as an essay/opinion piece and only should be treated as such, but as a notable journalist involved in the situation, Auerbach's opinion does have weight. . --MASEM (t) 03:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Also to add, the thing to add is Auerbach's speculation on why most AAA pubs have been silent on GG (which I could have sworn the lack of response has been commented on before in RSes, but can't find immediately) .--MASEM (t) 03:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe that Auerbach is in a tiny minority in his statement that AAA games producers are even tacitly in support of Gamergate. The far more plausible reason for their silence is they have no desire to do anything to be places on the gamergate "acceptable target" list. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It is interesting, but the article is self published as well as being an editorial. Without some additional support, his argument as to why AAA developers don't (generally) speak about Gamgergate doesn't seem particularly useful, and to be honest it doesn't seem overly accurate either. - Bilby (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No, he's spot on. The difference is the AAA doesn't consider all gamergate supporters to be supporters of harassment campaigns against women. They are gamers and customers. Only the warped logic of wikipedia echoes "journos" views. It's clearly not what others think and their silence speaks more loudly than the "weight of reliable sources." Failing to differentiate Misplaced Pages from reality is why the article sucks. They ignored what journos complain is not ignorable. --DHeyward (talk) 04:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that we are unable to use silence as a source. - Bilby (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Still, he's right. Misplaced Pages rules don't change reality. He's spot on about the failed expectations of those that "won" in October and are ignored with silence now. --DHeyward (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. The important part is that this is both just his self-published opinion and WP:FRINGE, so highlighting it in the article would be giving it WP:UNDUE weight. --Aquillion (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's SPS. It's not fringe, though, and I'm not sure where you are coming from with that. He covered a press conference where GG related questions and concerns were shut down (again) - it's a followup to the money the industry gave late last year to fight sexism and an extension to social justice concerns and gains that were actually made in influencing AAA games. It's background material for article writers. It's a view about journalists expressed by a journalist that's covered the topic. If the goal is NPOV, this is part of what's missing in the article. The lack of "coverage of the coverage" in citable, reliable sources is a Misplaced Pages problem but that's our artificial construction of how we write. We can't change it but we should recognize it as missing and seek citable sources to use. Believe it or not, there is a journalism and social justice aspect to GamerGate and Auerbach is someone that has covered it. Despite the money given last year to Sarkeesian, et al, (that's a part of GamerGate and is not fringe and that money was not reparations for harassment), despite the questions posed to AAA trade groups, no "seat at the table" was given. Gaming press updated their policies regarding journalist fraternization and COI, but the industry hasn't changed to include social justice concerns the journalists are close to. That's Auerbach's observation and we gloss over those relationships and we completely miss the followup. --DHeyward (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

If there are no other sources stating that AAA is supporting Gamergate, a sole voice making such a claim when every other business that was seen as supporting gamergate has backpeddled so quickly and specifically announced their support of programs absolutely contrary to GG, making such a claim is indeed FRINGE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said anything about supporting Gamergate. We make reference to many things that are fallout from gamergate though. Example is the legislation proposed by Mass congresswoman is fallout from gamergate but there are no sources that say explicitly that it is opposing gamergate. Gamergate isn't mentioned at all but we know she met with Wu and mentioned her. What's notable (and has been noted) is that the legislation is a very weak funding bill, there are no prosecutions even when the identity of harassers is known yet we don't say law enforcement is supporting gamergate. This Auerbach piece is showing very little progress in changing AAA games or giving gamergate opposers (since you seem to like framing it that way) any voice in development. In other words, nothing has happened, despite the articulation of how bad gamergate has been. We have given voice to the frustration of lack of prosecution and this is an observation of more of the same in the game dev arena. All the Bad Things about AAA games is being quite visibly ignored, just like prosecutions and just like legislation. Are you happy with the response to Gamergate at any level? Do you really think it's a fringe view that nothing is being done or do you selectively use it to make your point? Journalists are just as frustrated that AAA is not responding just as Wu is frustrated at Law Enforcement. Neither are fringe. One gets covered though. Auerbach points out that journalists are also frustrated. It's a SPS but that's it. It fits all other gamergate narratives expressing frustration and we should continue to look for sources that continue that point. --DHeyward (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You should think again, because it is right there in black and white " The AAAs *are* supporting Gamergate, at least tacitly. " I am not sure how much clearer of a statement one could make.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's an SPS, and even though a case could be made that Auerbach is an expert, there's no way to stretch that to speculating on the motives of third parties. Rhoark (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a fantastic source for the opinion of Auerbach. I'm not sure Auerbach holds any sort of significance or expertise re: Gamergate though, so not sure if we'd be able to use his opinion too much. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 05:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

He's a reliable source cited in the article. This is largely an extension of what he wrote last September. Very prescient. --DHeyward (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No, he himself is not a reliable source for anything outside his own opinion. I imagine he's written for reliable sources. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 07:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

He's a random person who has commented on it before; I don't see any reason why he'd be considered "involved" any more than any of the other numerous journalists who have qualified, which certainly isn't enough to let us cite his twitter. There was a time when people seemed weirdly determined to quote him on every aspect of the controversy, but I'm not seeing why we should lend him the degree of weight you're suggesting -- he's not particularly more notable than any other journalist who has commented, his opinions are clearly WP:FRINGE, and I don't see how he's more involved than the dozens of other journalists. Giving his personal opinions more attention than he already gets in the article would clearly be WP:UNDUE. Even in the one case where we do mention him, we're careful to combine it with another source to make it clear that that isn't just one guy's opinion; not seeing that here, especially since this essay is explicitly just his speculation. The fact that he's already mentioned in the article is just another reason not to include this, since repeatedly quoting one journalist with no special relevance to the subject would give the impression that we are giving his personal opinions undue weight... the article used to be a giant quotefarm of people using random editorials like this one to snipe at each other by proxy; that's why we rearranged it to group noteworthy opinions among commentators together under common themes, so we didn't end up with every quote or opinion piece that some random editor things is cutting or incisive dropped in at random (and so we could be sure that no one journalist's opinions is given undue weight.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you look at his contributions, I wouldn't consider him uninvolved. He participated in the Gamergate arbitration case so I would considered him more involved than a journalist who hadn't. Liz 20:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

His participation in the Arbitration case is no more involved than admins that participated. He defended his name and reputation against misattribution, but did not contribute to the article. He's also responded on his talk page when his education and experience was misstated. This is no different than, say, Gamaliel who was named as a party to the Arbcom case but still has acted as "uninvolved admin" during and after the case (even sanctions proposed by other uninvolved admins didn't deter action). Participation in process doesn't make them "involved." Auerbach's essay lacks editorial oversight that we normally associate with reliable sources and we usually consider both the writer and the editor. Had he written the piece in Salon, it would be reliable and citable. --DHeyward (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nothing much to add here. A self-published essay by a single lone voice does not belong in the article; if there is a biographical article about Auerbach, and if it is a major part of his work, it may conceivably belong there. --TS 21:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

True. It's a place to look for reliable sources that express the same viewpoint or examples of that viewpoint. Particularly I'd look at game journos that write about AAA and E3. It's notable as a place to start looking, not a source to cite just as Sarkeesian's videos are notable but not citable. --DHeyward (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

We need reliable sources, not "game journos" who write alphabet soup. --TS 00:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Washington Post article sourcing statement about Gamergate supporters alleging Quinn/Grayson relationship was for favorable review

@Bilby:, take a careful look at the source. The second paragraph says "an ex-boyfriend wrote a blog post implying that she had traded sex for positive reviews". That does not support "Statements in the post led Gamergate supporters to allege that the relationship had induced Grayson to publish a favorable review of Depression Quest." —Torchiest _edits 16:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying here, @Torchiest:, after reading this repeatedly and with care. I wonder whether you've omitted a crucial word or something like that? MarkBernstein (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The source doesn't say that "Gamergate supporters that the relationship had induced Grayson to publish a favorable review of Depression Quest." It says the blog post implied it. According to whom? The author of that source, it seems. Note this doesn't change any text in the article, but simply removes a source being used incorrectly where there are already plenty of other sources. —Torchiest _edits 18:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I respect you caution with the source, but I'm a bit lost with what you're saying here. The line in our article reads "Statements in the post led Gamergate supporters to allege that the relationship had induced Grayson to publish a favorable review of Depression Quest", and this seems to be fully supported by the Washington Post article. It makes it clear that the post (incorrectly) implied that Quinn had "traded sex for positive reviews", and that this lead to the campaign against Quinn, which in turn led to the campaigners claiming the GamerGate hashtag. - Bilby (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

is there confusion between the dirty double load laundry blog post vs the Washington Post? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not in a place I can readily review the past sources, but this is something to double check and maybe err with less exacting language. I've not read Gjoni's post, only what others have reported about it, but the recent "Game of Fear" article from Boston Magazine does not suggest the post included the "sex for reviews" claim, only that (per Gjoni's statements) that Quinn was cheating on him with Grayson who Gjoni did identify as a games journalist. I know this contradicts the above WAPost which is why I think a second review of exactly what Gjoni's post set in motion, and what came from the GG side should be delineated. Or if we can find language that avoids having to define the line, that might be easier than the nuances of the situation (being that events at the onset were not as well documented as they are now since no one saw this coming). --MASEM (t) 03:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the contents Gonji's post is out of keeping with what is being claimed here. Gonji didn't state that there was any "sex for reviews", but per our wording, the contents of the blog post did lead others to (incorrectly) infer that it had occurred. This required Gonji to clear things up with an edit to the post, clarifying the timeline, but by then damage had already been done and the whole mess was underway. Fortunately, our wording doesn't accuse Gonji of making these claims, so we should be good. We're using the Washington Post article and the other sources to connect the three elements - Gonji's blog post; the accusations against Quinn; and the start of Gamergate. - Bilby (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Which is why I suggest maybe we can avoid having to discuss the specific nuances here with alternate wording that summarizes those three steps. --MASEM (t) 03:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I think the current wording does summarise them :) Our current wording is:

In August 2014, Quinn’s former boyfriend, Eron Gjoni, published a 9,425 word blog post ... detailing their relationship. The post ... included the allegations that Quinn had a relationship with Nathan Grayson, a journalist for the video game news website Kotaku. ... Statements in the post led Gamergate supporters to allege that the relationship had induced Grayson to publish a favorable review of Depression Quest. The claim was quickly investigated and determined to be false.

The controversy, originally termed the "quinnspiracy", adopted the Twitter hashtag "Gamergate".

The timeline seems right - Gonji posted the blog post; his statements led people to infer that there was a problem with reviews; it was disproven; and it whole thing became known as Gamergate. - Bilby (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm trying to be as clear as possible. As far as I can tell, the rest of the sources used to cite this statement are fine, and I am not suggesting changing the phrasing in our article. But the WaPo line doesn't specifically say that GG supporters alleged the relationship was an exchange for a good reviews. It says the post implied that, in other words, Gjoni implied that, not GG supporters. The WaPo article never specifically says that GG supporters believed there was an exchange of sex for reviews. And I'll emphasize again, I'm not saying that belief wasn't widely reported, or that it isn't the consensus view. I'm just saying this source doesn't support the exact statement in the article, and should be removed as a citation just from that one spot. The source is used elsewhere, appropriately as far as I know, and again, there are still half a dozen other sources supporting that statement. Since it's one of the key points of the controversy, it should be strongly supported, but that's my whole point. The WaPo source isn't strong on that line, at all. I think it's OR to knit the bits and pieces of statements in WaPo source together, simply based on the preponderance of other sources actually making the statement clearly. —Torchiest _edits 14:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we do better by victims of harassment?

I want to echo Mark Bernstein's statement at AE, "We have no business broadcasting murder threats against Gamergate's victims or broadcasting sexual gossip about Gamergate’s perceived enemies". I have mentioned already that I don't believe direct quotations of threats are in line with WP:AVOIDVICTIM. It may also be possible to further reduce the coverage given to sexual allegations. Reliable sources say that the allegations regarding Nathan Grayson are unsubstantiated, and in any case not the core of Gamergate's concerns. The article may be describing these things in more detail than is warranted by encyclopedic interest. Rhoark (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Not the core of GG concerns? RS make it clear that it was the flashpoint of the whole thing. Is there anything specific from the article you want to remove? — Strongjam (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Origin, yes. Core, no. I would like to see all direct quotes of threats removed. I'm also interested in what other people want removed. It's been asserted that this article is being used to perpetrate further harm against victims, and that is extremely serious. Rhoark (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that we could remove all mention of Gamergate’s harassment to "protect the victims." Then we could indeed rewrite the article to say that Gamergate is about ethics! And we could all get ponies! The problem is, this would be seen by the whole world as a palpable lie, and merited scorn would be heaped upon Misplaced Pages. Gamergate’s harassment is its only notable activity.

What we should do is watch this page, Zoe Quinn’s page, Brianna Wu’s page, and every other related page and their talk pages, and instantly revert and oversight any attempt to use Misplaced Pages to smear Gamergate’s targets, or those who would like to defend them. TRPoD, Strongjam, PeterTheFourth, and I have done this dozens of times, as did editors like Tarc and Ryulong. Some names that appear rather often here seem less often to be found rooting out the vile filth that Gamergate continues to exploit Misplaced Pages to spread. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that's happening? That's my perception, at least. I'm watching this, Wu, and Katherine Clark. I've never seen vandalism that was still live by the time I even saw the page move up on my watchlist. Is there something more you'd like people to do? Rhoark (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Utah gun law edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gamergate_controversy&diff=667440776&oldid=667427252

I'm not sure about the need for this edit. Comments? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: I'm not suggesting a revert of it, but I keep going back and forth over whether it helps clarify or just adds more words. I think part of the problem is that I know about Utah's law, so I don't see it as useful, but would the regular reader be served by the inclusion? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a good clarification, although I'm not particularly attached to it. Most readers probably won't be familiar with Utah gun laws (I'm not.) Not sure why we have the quotation marks though, we could do without those. — Strongjam (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Tightened the prose. Might remove the unlike other states bit, too. Not sure. Part of it just seems wordy maybe is my problem with the edit. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I tried tightening it a bit more to the salient points. As always ping if anyone wants me to self-revert and discuss more. — Strongjam (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. Rhoark (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to the original edit, this source says the legal situation is similar in other states. Rhoark (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rhoark: Maybe I'm missing something, but that source seems to say the same thing as our article. It says "Utah is one of seven states that allow concealed carry on college campuses" and then adds "Utah law prohibits colleges from taking away concealed weapons from valid permit holders. Utah is the only state in the country with such a law." — Strongjam (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I suppose I missed that distinction. Rhoark (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I would trim the current version right back to "because of Utah's implementation of open carry." This should be supplemented by a source that competently explains the issue. The only salient point here is that Ms Sarkeesian was not satisfied that she'd be safe in an auditorium where anybody could show up armed and be allowed in. This is such an obvious point that we don't need to labour it. --TS 19:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That seems too vague. The claim that the law precluded screening has also been disputed. I think this needs a little more detail to satisfy both NPOV and general encyclopedic interest. Rhoark (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Disputed by whom and where? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed if we have a source disputing this we should look at it. Please let's see the source.--TS 00:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Had to scour my browser history, but I found it. It's a local FOX affiliate quoting an attorney. USU is "reviewing" the claim. Rhoark (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

gotta love fox news facts - a statement about creating the largest school mass shooting is not "terrorism", its a "terroristic-type" threat. Right up there with the distinctions between "rape" and "rape-rape". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we should rely on the the other reliable sources that simply declared it "not a credible threat" instead of worrying about whether the anonymous guy had access to nuclear weapons. Montreal is also known for lax gun control on Universities, too, for comparison. Oh wait, my BS detector is going off. --DHeyward (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No. I am pretty sure we are not going to go down the lines of "She is a professional victim" or "she is just a scaredy girl who doesnt have the balls to stand up to what are obviously just idle threats from pimply teenage boys who are insecure about their penis size." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It should be removed. It's not even clear that she would ever have received the security she asked for which I believe was metal detectors. Regardless of state, that decision and its cost would be weighed against its benefit. If Sarkeesian mentioned the law, then it should be mentioned as she stated it and not an inference about other states or countries. It would be like mentioning that she doesn't request metal detectors at other college campuses, even ones that have been the subject to school shootings. Shooting people is illegal too so maybe we should mention that it must be safer in Utah because of the death penalty. These things just are not relevant. She didn't feel safe so she cancelled. Law Enforcement and the university couldn't identify a credible threat. Those are about the only two things that are notable. Why she cancelled doesn't really matter just as why the threat wasn't deemed credible doesn't really matter. Delving into state gun laws, university security and the various other aspects is more weeds. --DHeyward (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

So we can just go back to reliable sources? Salt Lake Tribune: "But after learning that Utah State University was legally forbidden from restricting firearms at a Wednesday lecture over which she received a death threat, the nationally-known feminist writer and video game critic canceled her appearance." I mean these are the facts that we've lost sight of in this argument. --TS 00:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

And that's about all we need to mention about gun laws as that one aspect made her feel unsafe. Not the other stuff about tangential comparisons of laws, policies and procedures. she's a credible expert on how she feels, not a credible expert on security, gun laws or safety. --DHeyward (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

And more on point that doesn't address interpretation of the law: "But after learning that Utah State University would not install metal detectors to check for firearms at a Wednesday lecture over which she received a death threat, the nationally-known feminist writer and video game critic canceled her appearance. Law enforcement determined the threat was not credible." That's the facts as well without having to rely on an interpretation of Utah gun laws. --DHeyward (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think Tony Sidaway's suggested edit looks best. Or a new paraphrase of the Salt Lake Tribune TS brings up. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sarkeesian's statements and most RS's about the incident consider the legal situation to be an important factor in what happened. I don't agree with the various editors who have suggested glossing over it. Rhoark (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The RS'ssay she was "told" the law meant something. There is no question that instilled fear in her. Who told her and the credibility of that source of legal advice is not given. We have reliable sources that say she asked for metal detectors. We have sources that say the threat was not credible. It's a lot of SYNTH to conclude that Utah's laws or the security decisions were, in fact, increasing her risk. It's perfectly acceptable, however, to outline her personal fear as long as we don't attribute that fear to anything other than what Sarkeesian felt. Montreal's very strict handgun laws didn't stop the shooting that was compared and its SYNTH to imply that Utah's laws would create more or less jeopardy. All the sources tell us is that it made her afraid, not whether it was reasoned or rational. Security experts deemed the threat to be not credible and that is also in the reliable sources. --DHeyward (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's clear here that USU's and Sarkeesian's interpretation of the reason why reasonable security precautions she requested were turned down coincide: that was that the law forbids it. The fact that other legal opinions exist (not held by those requesting the precautions or those refusing them) is not relevant to the situation. This article isn't a review of Utah law and such a review would not change the fact that the requested security precautions were refused. --TS 13:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the incident would be notable enough for an independent article, and in that article it would be of encyclopedic interest to discuss the laws that influenced the situation. That's nothing to do with Sarkeesian's state of mind. I don't think anyone's suggested using this angle to question her decision, or that there is a source that would be usable for doing anything like that. If consensus is that its undue in this particular article, I can go with that. I just disagree that it's unimportant or not worth talking about. Rhoark (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The law does not forbid metal detectors or identifying people with firearms and checking they have permits. Permits are required and people with permits carry guns all the time in every state. USU said backpacks would be disallowed but they could not remove firearms from permit holders (they did not say they couldn't identify those that had firearms and check that they had permits). It's SYNTH to say metal detectors are "reasonable" or her request that permit holders not be allowed to bring firearms was "reasonable." USU didn't comment on it's reasonableness other than to say security experts in LE determined the threat was not credible and they would ban backpacks and increase security to accommodate her concerns. Please note that guns are not banned even when the President is visiting in open forums. Again, we can say what she feared but synthesizing the law as being a common fear shared by the University and Sarkeesian is not supported nor is synthesizing her request to remove firearms from permit holders is "reasonable". If she had requested that law enforcement also not be armed, we could not synthesize that as a "reasonable" request even if other countries have unarmed police. Quite the opposite as USU went ahead with its view of reasonable security measures and still wished to have Sarkeesian speak. Taking guns from permit holders was not one of the "reasonable" solutions. Law enforcement doesn't ever do pat downs except if they have reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred and the pat down is done according to Terry stop rules. --DHeyward (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a source indicating the dichotomy of views. Sarkeesian: Requested pat downs or metal detectors after mass shooting threat but because of Utah's open carry laws police wouldn’t do firearm searches. Source: But Sarkeesian pulled out after learning from university officials that concealed weapons would be permitted, as long as attendees have a valid concealed firearm permit in accordance with Utah law. FBI (from source): University spokesman Tim Vitale says the FBI told school officials the threat is consistent with ones Sarkeesian receives when she gives speeches elsewhere. There's a large chasm of synth to conclude her request at Utah was "reasonable" and there is another chasm in her term of "open carry laws" vs. the "concealed carry by permit holders" that is oulined by sources. Here's another source that speaks about what the police would do but thought pat downs and metal detectors were needlessly invasive. The FBI also comments that it is similar to threats she receives at other events. they also comment that Sarkeesian doesn't have pat downs or metal detectors at those events despite threats. They even go on to describe the threat Sarkeesian cited was unrelated to GamerGate and that is why she was more fearful in Utah. --DHeyward (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus Check/Not a Vote

I am now confused as to who supports what. At one point I thought DHeyward agreed with Tony Sidaway's suggestion. I think Rhoark does not. DHeyward wants to add more(?), which can be a separate discussion? Is Tony Sidaway's suggestion ok?

Support Tony Sidaway's suggestion to use Salt Lake Tribune: "But after learning " ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This SLT source, not the one TS proposed has more detail. It says the very specific and detailed threat was not GamerGate related. It was one of three threats, but the only one that proposed shooting. It was the first shooting threat she received. It was pursed separately by the FBI but was not related to GamerGate. The mention of the mass shooting threat needs to be removed from the lede. Analysis of gun laws is not necessary nor is conclusions about "reasonable.". -DHeyward (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources clearly see them as connected, and as one of the most widely covered incidents in during the controversy it belongs in the lede. — Strongjam (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources link Sarkeesian cancellation to a shooting threat. Please provide the reliable source that links the single shooting threat to GamerGate. The reliable source clearly says the shooting threat happened on monday and the GamerGate threat happened on Tuesday. Lumping them together is SYNTH. Sarkeesian has received threats before GamerGate so it's very probable that those non-gamergate threats will coincide with GG threats. In this case, the single shooting threat was specifically separated from GG. --DHeyward (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Next, Gamergate targeted feminist video game and pop culture critic Anita Sarkeesian, who was forced to cancel a talk at Utah State University after a Gamergate supporter threatened her in an email with “the deadliest school shooting in American history.”
• The death threats and the swirling controversy became part of what's now known as "Gamergate."
• Part of its aim is to silence the voices it disagrees with rather than engage in anything resembling reasoned debate — which is why Sarkeesian and Wu were driven from their homes, and Sarkeesian was forced to cancel a lecture at Utah State following threats of a school shooting.
• The harassment of Anita Sarkeesian -- including being forced to cancel an appearance in Utah in response to a mass shooting threat -- only escalated from GamerGate.

Strongjam (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

And the most detailed account of the threats distinguished which of the three were GG and which were not. Of your quotes, only NYPost linked "shooting" with GG. Death threats, yes - mass shooting, no. She received 3 threats, 1 was gamergate. The GG was not the shooting. It's pretty straight forward that the link of GG to the mass shooting threat is a SYNTH. --DHeyward (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Some more:

• ... over a GamerGate-related threat to cause "“the deadliest school shooting in American history" if she went through with her appearance.
• The USU e-mail was just the latest example of threats against women and others advocating for change in the gaming industry, and has been associated with an ongoing and increasingly outspoken online culture known as Gamergate.

You keep referencing WP:SYNTH. You'll have to break it down for me how you think this is combining multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not stated in any of the sources. —Strongjam (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You are synthesizing that the shooting threat was gamergate. It was not. Take the daildot piece quoting Sarkeesian Multiple specific threats made stating intent to kill me & feminists at USU. For the record one threat did claim affiliation with #gamergate We know what threat that was and what day it was received. Yes, she received 3 threats. Yes she received one "mass shooting" threat (Monday). Yes, she received one gamergate threat (Tuesday). No, you cannot synthesize all those into "she received 3 gamergate threats regarding a mass shooting." It's clear that there has been no established link between gamergate and the shooting threat. there's no question it's a death threat but leaping all around to make them all gamergate death threats is not supported. The SLT source is the most detailed and most accurate account of the USU cancellation and even show glaring errors in DailyDot (i.e. open carry without an permit to that venue is not legal and that's clear from the SLT, and also, police said they would search bags - also contrary to dailydot). We have to remove the synth and go with sources that most accurately capture all aspects. --DHeyward (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not WP:SYNTH and I've given multiple RS to that make the link. Suggest you start a new section explaining what change you want to make and why and try to build consensus. This thread doesn't seem to be attracting much attention. — Strongjam (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

GG/E3

GG at E3. Destruction currently off line but rss version shows numerous posters insulting towards Sarkeesian around E3 at LA. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Doom criticised by Sarkeesian in the Guardian. --DHeyward (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's in The Independent, which is just as reliable a source. But it seems to have nothing to do with Gamergate. If we made this article about everything Anita Sarkeesian has ever called violent, it would fill up with reports about violent things. The article is, instead, about Gamergate. --TS 01:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There are apparently posters in a similar style mocking various people. Rhoark (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm straining to see an evident connection with Gamergate at this point. --TS 01:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You'd have to know it's Sarkeesian and FeministFrequency which is assuming a lot. That's not on the poster either. --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Quote: "The background of the posters features #GamerGate written repeatedly in light grey text." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The posters... yeah. What ForbiddenRocky said.--Jorm (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless it's those third party trolls the kids are raving about, that's fairly conclusive a connection to this article. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 01:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Even if it is those third party trolls the kids are raving about, its relevant to the article as to how just incorporating #gamgergate into your meme makes it 1000 times more horrible - the new metameme. But we need a better source telling us how it is relevant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

polygon --MASEM (t) 03:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

USA Today coverage of E3. Bonnie Ross featured. I'm sure she's less influential than any number of GG victims. Tough choice to decide who we should have bio articles for role models and gaming influence. Maybe it's because she doesn't tell us how many rape and death threats she receives and that's the true measure of a women's worth in WP space. "Microsoft Vice President and Head of 343 Industries" pales in comparison. --DHeyward (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this related to GGC? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. RTFA --DHeyward (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

How so? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a RS on GGC. --DHeyward (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Not seeing the relevance. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it either: it mentions that she spoke on continues issues with women in the gaming industry, which clearly but not directly allude to GG; USA Today makes the connection but this does nothing to explain or expand the story. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I would love to include something about the posters and Bonnie Ross and E3, but there no direct way to do this from this source. There isn't even a passage to COPYVIO let alone paraphrase for inclusion. However, it does indicate that there might be one later. On the other hand I saw an article saying that many people are avoiding saying GG at all in gaming contexts. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note that I have included from the above Polygon article that mentioned that there was still gamergate activities at E3 (though didn't go into details of the poster), combining that with the previous issue from the Canadian Game Developers conference (the Death Eaters/Voldemort thing). That last one, that's where the conference specifically said not to mention GG. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

What are "gamergate supporters"?

2nd paragraph of "History" talks about "Gamergate supporters" but nothing explains who this is. Another use of that term a few paragraphs later suggests it's the term for some or all of the anti-Quinn people.

Can someone either explain the term early on, or use a clearer term?

One problem is that nothing says whether "Gamergate" is the term used by the anti-Quinn people or the not-anti-Quinn people. I mean, is a supporter of Gamergate someone who says "Let's Gamergate this woman!" or is it someone who says "What's happening is unacceptable, let's make Gamergate an issue!"

"Perpetrators" (the people who carry out something) seems more accurate than "supporters", but with the above mentioned naming problem, I don't think just replacing "supporters" will be enough to make this term understandable to people who don't already know the topic. Gronky (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that because GG is amorphous and anonymous with unclear goals, the language to describe the people involved is messy. In broad strokes, "gamergate supporters" are generally taken as those that have been speaking negatively about gaming journalism and ethics problems, but some sources, in their definition, include anyone that uses the #gamergate hashtag or tag, and that would include those that are engaging in harassment and threats. (Regardless, they would all be considered "anti-Quinn" in your question) Trying to make the distinction between these various facets has been a long running problem on this page. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There are many people who "speak negatively about gaming journalism and ethics problems" but are not in any way supportive of "gamergate" . There are those who are involved in /"support" "gamergate" for the fact that gamergate is opposed to feminism and not because of any concern of "ethics" in gaming .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, to be clear, GG supporters are people that speak negatively about gaming journalism under the hashtag GG. And on the last part, it's not just feminism, but any social or politicial issue (eg such as LBGT), though feminism appears to be by far the largest one. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No,to be clear GG supporters are those who support any part of the multitude of facets of GG - some "supporters" participate and approve of the harassment and death threats to women, some "support" the antifeminist drive to remove social criticism from games, some few "support" GG lame and incomprehensible "but ethics" stance. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I was focusing more on the issue that just being critical of gaming press doesn't make you a GGer - GGers nearly always associate their complaints with the GG hashtag. There's several facets after that within it, obviously. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh. "speaking negatively about gaming journalism" as in, saying it's pro-women biased ("Quinn got attention too easily")? Or saying it's anti-women?

I'm not going to fix this article (I had only a very passing interest, just wanted to see what this thing is), so I'm just posing the question so that people who are editing can see the comprehension problems that a casual reader will have.

If I were to try to fix the article, I think I would start by removing uses of "Gamergate supporters". The term doesn't seem to serve the intended purpose. Maybe there's no term that can serve all the needs presented in the article, so it would be better to have a descriptive sentence, which can be different for different contexts. Gronky (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, it's primarily against seemingly pro-feminist journalism and game development but there's other issues too (hence why "social justice" is a connected term). But we've been at strong odds, repeatedly, to struggle to find a good way to define things given the undefinable nature of what the claimed GG movement is, in contrast to what it actually demonstrates. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No idea about it's RS status, but the title alone of this paper says it well: Molden, Dan T. "How Do You Catch a Cloud and Pin it Down? The struggle to define and identify the GamerGate" movement"." (2015). — Strongjam (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing that sourced described as a "department bulletin paper" , which means it likely lacks peer-review for an internal newsletter-equivalent, so its RS-ness is iffy, but I hope we'll see more papers like that to describe the problems. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

We might consider using "Gamergate adherents" in some contexts, and "Gamergate followers" in others. When speaking of planning the operations that culminated in threats or discussed attacks, "Gamergate conspirators" would certainly be a suitable term amply supported by the sources. Under the circumstances, a Gamergater is anyone who claims to be one, typically by using the hashtag; there are no card-carrying members of Gamergate because they don't (as far as we know) hand out cards. As noted above, the motivations that lead people to endorse sending threats of rape, murder and mayhem in order to dissuade them from pursuing careers in computing are not very well documents; it is better for the encyclopedia to define Gamergate supporters by their action of supporting its notable activities or writing in its name. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think most or all of you are missing the problem. As an outsider having read the intro and the History section, I can't tell if Quinn is a Gamergate adherent/supporter or not.

I've read further down the article now and it seems "Gamergate supporter" is someone attacking Quinn (and related actions). When reading just the start, I was wondering if "Gamergate supporter" was someone fighting back against these attacks by making a big social issue of how women are treated in the gamer community. (Would a "Watergate supporter" be someone who supports corruption or someone who supports the investigation into the corruption?)

Maybe the article can be improved by using a less vague intro. I'll make an edit to the first sentence. As an outsider unaware of previous discussions, my edit is unlikely to please everyone but maybe it will add some fresh ideas. I won't be sticking around for long though. Gronky (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Supportive of your edit, but I feel it won't be uncontroversial. — Strongjam (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gronky: Do keep in mind that the lede of this article has already been subject to extensive discussion. A Gamergate support is a person who says, "I support Gamergate!" or "I am taking part in this Gamergate action!" or, more broadly, a person who works to promote Gamergate. For example, someone threatening to murder a female software developer and using the #Gamergate hashtag in the threat would certainly be a Gamergate supporter. The person receiving such a threat is unlikely to be a Gamergate supporter. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I can imagine it has! I gave it a try and I actually think my new version is not bad. I mostly just reused all the existing words. What do you think?

The problem I want to solve is that I don't know who would say "I support Gamergate!" I didn't know if Gamergate was the attacks or the fight back. I think some parts of this article are written by people who are so informed about the topic that they assume certain things are obvious/clear when they're not. Gronky (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That's far better than most proposals that have been made. (There are likely people who will ardently object.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree -- that's far better than most proposals that have been made. I have made some small revisions which do not, I think, affect your clarification at all. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gronky: I concur that the article is not doing well in explaining what is going on or who is responsible, but the changes you made are not consistent with reliable sources. First of all, "Gamergate" is frequently used to refer to a controversy, a movement, or a group of people. All these things are frequently related to misogynistic attacks, but it is not a common usage to define Gamergate as being the set of attacks themselves. Furthermore, the connection between Gamergate and the specific attacks on Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian is contentious. Misplaced Pages should not take a side on those issues in such strong terms. Rhoark (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

An edit I have proposed that makes it more clear what is going on, while reflecting the range of reliable sources is,

"The Gamergate controversy is a set of interrelated debates about gender, censorship, and journalistic integrity. The most widely publicized aspects of the controversy have been the violent threats made against Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Such threats against these and other individuals are believed to come from a small minority of participants on either side of the debate."

There have been concerns this doesn't give sufficient weight to certain facets of the situation. I could support changing "gender" to "sexism", for instance, but I think this is a better starting point for revision. Rhoark (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)the connection between Gamergate and the specific attacks on Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian is contentious. Source for that? Based on the sources in our article it seems pretty widely accepted. — Strongjam (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That there is relatedness is not contentious, but the level of relatedness is. Most of what happened with ZQ is older than the name Gamergate and involves a much smaller group of people. The highest profile threat against Anita had no connection with GG. Some sources don't care about these distinctions; others do. Rhoark (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

the highest profile threat absolutely had an absolute connection to gamergate. stop trying to whitewash. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the facts well enough to reply on the substance, but if what you say is correct then "Gamergate" is not a defined thing that people can be a supporter of. What if the first use of "Gamergate" in my version was replaced by "the Gamergate attacks", and then uses of the term "Gamergate supporters" could be replaced by "supporters of the Gamergate attacks". Would things then be clear and correct? (In your opinion and in the opinion of the others here.) Gronky (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No doubt that would be an improvement, but the lede ought to start with defining the subject of the article and only then explain why it is notable. Rhoark (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give that version a try. As for more generally changing how the lede is written, I'm going to leave that to yourself and others :-) Gronky (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

edit conflict The misogynistic attacks are the only notable activity* of Gamergate, and as explained above by Masem (!) attacks using the hashtag #Gamergate are nearly the only things we can actually attribute to Gamergate. It is extremely common to use Gamergate to refer to the attacks: the attacks are all that Gamergate has accomplished. The connection between Gamergate and specific attacks is not contentious: dozens of impeccable sources draw the connection -- which is inescapable -- and only the most rabidly fringe sources question it -- if indeed they do. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• One other activity of Gamergate has drawn significant attention in reliable sources: their tireless and unremitting attempts to use this encyclopedia and this page to whitewash their harassment campaign and to broadcast sexual innuendo concerning their rivals. At the moment, I think it best to resist the temptation to add a section concerning this; as Gamergate's campaign against Misplaced Pages continues, it's likely best to wait for the problem to be resolved. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. This thread is still there, waiting for you to back up any of your claims. Rhoark (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Rhoark, cool it. We don't need to go over (for the umpteenth time) all of the reliable sources which correctly describe gamergate as the death rattle of a woman hating niche. Consistently asking again and again for it to be shown to you is not constructive. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 19:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No, the highest quality reliable sources (like NYTimes or WAPost) do not say that GG is that; they do say there are factions within GG that clearly out to harass females and critics, but they are also clear there are factions within GG that want to discuss ethics, and do not describe these as "women hating". The group/concept, as a whole, has elements of fighting against feminism, and of contributing towards an environment where harassment is not seen as a criminal act, and that by associating with the group, those that want to talk ethics are guilty by association, but to present every member of the group as against feminism or directly involved in the harassment is completely against these sources. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The sources say there are posts claiming "ethics" that have nothing to do with ethics. Many used as a smokescreen to attempt to rationalize sexual harassment of the victims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

We wouldn't need umpteen times if we could get an honest consideration of the sources once. Rhoark (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Take back your unsupported accusation that fellow editors are not giving "honest" consideration. That is flat out false. Even crappy sources have been given excessive consideration. 39 god-damn archive pages of consideration. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Being specific each time

I've made a new intro which is just my original proposal but with the first "Gamergate" replaced by "the Gamergate attacks".

I started to update the article body then to say "supporters of the Gamergate attacks" instead of "Gamergate supporters" but I stopped when I got to the 5th paragraph of the "Subsequent harassment" section which says that Milo and Christina Hoff Sommers organised an event for Gamergate supporters, and some other woman (I skimmed the ref but couldn't find who she was) received hacking attempts for supporting Gamergate. Did these people actually support the attacks and doxing? (I'm guessing they didn't) Or, in the context of this paragraph, is "Gamergate" something else? The "Gamergate supporters" who don't support the threats and the doxings, what do they say they're supporters of?

If people think the new intro text is good ([the link again), then the article could be fixed by someone who knows the context better than I do going through it replacing "Gamergate supporters" with either, depending on the context, "supporters of the Gamergate attacks" or description_number_2. (The latter being a few words to describe people who don't support attacking people but do think gamers should resist whatever Milo and Christina think they should be resisting.)

Is this a path to improvement? Gronky (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Calling it "Gamergate attacks" would be extremely bias and soapboxing. Yes, there were and still are attacks, and I did check that there are some sources out there, but there's a reason we call this article the "Gamergate controversy" - it is a controversy over why and the nature of not only the harassment but other means that have been used by GG supporters to sway others to their view, and the critically-negative reaction to these, and it implies that all supporters of Gamergate were directly involved or supported the attacks, which is not the case. It is the case that the harassment has taken center stage, but if you took that out and left the rest of the commentary in this, there's still plenty of criticism about the GG movement/supports about their otherwise legal but questionably moral methods of enacting change and their ideals that the propose, all centered around issues of sexist and feminism in the VG industry, so it is best to leave it at a middle ground as a "controversy" which also follows from searching the most common name on Google. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

But that's why I want to be specific each time. The article currently lumps everyone together, as if all supporters of GG support threatening and doxing women. As I learn more about this, it seems a distinction can and must be made between those who support the attacks (associated with GG) and those who support something else which I can't define yet (a fight against pro-women discrimination? Radical feminism? Affirmative action for women???).

I don't want to call everything "Gamergate attacks". I want to call the attacks "attacks", and the non-attacks something else.

Using the term "controversy" isn't a middle ground - it's a decision to not tell Misplaced Pages readers what GG is. Gronky (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

A controversy is what Gamergate is. It's a ton of people arguing on Twitter (and Reddit, and Misplaced Pages.) Some of them are really dicks about it and send threats. The threats come from both sides, and are not in themselves a side. Rhoark (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

But the article uses the term "Gamergate supporter". Can someone be a supporter of a controversy? If so, what does that mean here? If not then all instances of "Gamergate supporter" are misleading or wrongly used and must be replaced, no? Gronky (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a cluster of issues, any of which may be more or less important to any individual supporter. They include the ideas that gamers are not in general hostile to women and minorities, that cultural critics of games are promoting censorship, and that games journalists have skewed coverage on these issues. Rhoark (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so "Gamergate supporter" can't be attributed a meaning. That means it can't be used (without qualification). Gronky (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If that's hard to tell from the article, its by design. As you should be seeing by now from these threads, certain editors are fighting hard to keep it out. Rhoark (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

We mustn't accept unclear articles. Gronky (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Some Gamergaters may support the New York Yankees, but we don't know that. Some may support the Republican Party, but we don't know that. The only thing we know about Gamergate from the many reliable sources that cover it is that they send threats to female software developers; everything else is pretty much speculation. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

All of them? There's no reason to mention sports teams, but from what I've read so far I've the impression that Milo and Christina and their sort don't send threats to female software developers.

What does that latter group support?

Or, are you saying that that latter group is an insignificant fringe? (I don't know this sort of detail.) They organised at least one event, how many turned up to these events? Gronky (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

We know there are some that do not support harassment and want to talk ethics (per Singal, NYTimes, and WApost who have talked to GG members, so that's not speculation), but we have no idea the size of this number relative to what the other internal divisions are (strictly sticking to RSes). We know the actions are what is clear, but how many involved and what proportion of GG they make up is unclear, though RSes believe this to be from a vocal minority of GG supporters. That's why the current lede, to its benefit, identifies that the actions are why GG is notable, not the ethics claims. But we should not be pretending that PP is only people that want to harass, even if that's the only notable factor that's come out of it; that's the nature of a vocal minority. --MASEM (t) 20:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Probably at least half of the 38 archived talk pages concern who Gamergate is. They could have saved us much grief (and some topic bans, probably) if the movement wasn't an unorganized, leaderless, anonymous series of social media posts. The article would have been so much more easy to put together if they had agreed on a spokesperson(s). Coulda, woulda, shoulda though. Liz 20:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Indeed. But we'll work with what we have. Gronky (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

More specifically, anonymous "supporters of GamerGate" are attributed with harassment but named/non-anonymous "supporters of GamerGate" are not. Even within the anonymous subset, it's unclear how many are sending the "rape and death threats" that are covered as news. And even within the threat group, some are not even directly GamerGate. I came across a source today that explained the threat that triggered Sarkeesian's Utah cancellation was anti-feminist but not GamerGate related. The FBI made that distinction and opened a separate case. The aspects of gamerGate that are underrepresented are changes to gaming journalism disclosure requirements, the increase of the visibility of female lead characters in games as well as heightened awareness of female gamers and games, and the visibility of prominent female game developers and executives as the face of various games (in addition to the victims of harassment). WP has covered one aspect but for various reasons, these other significant developments are not covered. GamerGate coalesced a lot of disjointed pieces that revolve around women in gaming and not all of it is "rape and death threats." One notable aspect is that women in gaming are no longer fractured into players, developers, characters and various other separate pieces but now are unified more vertically in game products. That was a reaction to GamerGate threats and a recognition of the number of women in gaming but it is not the victim narrative of social injustice portrayed here, it's an empowerment narrative that plays out in events like e3 that is going on now. Make no mistake, it is gamergate related just with a different narrator. It is not a "pro-GamerGate" narrative WP characterizes as harassment nor is it the "anti-GamerGate" narrative that focuses on social justice. It's a narrative of gaming culture that is inclusive of women at all levels of gaming as a fallout from what began last summer. All these changes are covered in RSs and attributed as a reaction to GamerGate. What once was the separate groups of developer, game player, character, and software company executive is now represented in a vertical strategy of integration with a more singular voice. This source from last december speaks to its beginning in interviews with Bonnie Ross and Brianna Wu (note the problem with wikipedia coverage is evident by red and blue links - the answer as to why one exists and another does not lies at the heart of the coverage. Both are feminists, yet one wields significantly more influence in gaming and has done so for years, the other is a Social Justice advocate that runs a small indie development company. WP's article is heavily and POVishly skewed toward the Social Justice aspect rather than the gaming inustry as a whole). Ross spoke about issues but declined to detail any threats or harassment. She talked about the future. There are stories even today that talk about female gamers/consumers/developers/executives and the narrative response to GamerGate is integration, not revolution. --DHeyward (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

So create the article then instead of using it as a rhetorical device. — Strongjam (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It's better to fix the false narratives. There are at least 10 prominent female gaming executives that don't have WP articles and are ignored by the GamerGate article despite significant influence. --DHeyward (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"false narratives" ah... ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Are these the same narratives that are constantly crumbling? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 15:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Small lede change suggestion(s)

This is to take a small bit of middle-ground writing in the lede but without diminishing the implications or weight of sources:

• Currently The campaign was coordinated in the online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in an anonymous and amorphous movement that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #gamergate.
• Suggested The campaign was coordinated in the online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan by members of an anonymous and amorphous movement that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #gamergate.

This change still keeps the harassment charged to the GG movement, but leaves the question of how many of the movement was involved without getting into the details/nuances of the makeup. It also leaves the question opened of the origins of the movement without denying the possibility of it being created purposely as a harassment campaign (as opposed to the ethics as our sources also offer).

Also while on the lede, I know why we have the list of RSes in the lede about those sources that are debunking the ethics claims (editors were demanding sources), but I really think that looks sloppy, and would be all in favor of its removal, or perhaps moving that list to the start of the section about ethics. That way the list is still "right there" for someone to review. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Strong oppose There is no question of how much of Gamergate was involved: the only thing Gamergate has achieved, according to our reliable sources, is the harassment. The questions of the origins of the movement can be explored when reliable sources explore that. Since the sources agree that the ethics concerns had no substance or credibility, that need not be discussed. The list of sources who universally agree that the “ethics” was an excuse, not a concern, is absolutely necessary to the lede; any attempt to water that down would require deleting any mention of ethics from the lede. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Our reliable sources, overall, do not say GG was formed only to engage in harassment, but also consider the creation of the ethics, so that current statement in the lede, saying that the movement exclusively came out from the harassment is controversal. But by adding that "by members of", it reflects the truth of the sources, that not everyone in the movement is involved in the harassment. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting confused now. What about Milo and Christina and the event(s?) they organised? I feel like I'm missing something so this might seem silly but what's your opinion of the statement "Some people in the Gamergate movement have not supported threatening any women with violence"? Gronky (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Change "some" to "most", and you're on the right track. Rhoark (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein:: can I get your opinion on that statement? Gronky (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's still impossible. Yiannopoulos is a journalist for Breitbart and Sommers is a policy analyst for a right-wing think tank; both come to Gamergate as journalists or observers or partisans, not as leaders, representatives, or spokespeople. There is no reason to think them characteristic or typical, and certainly no reliable source has said that. For that matter, do we have reliable third-party coverage of Yiannopoulos' or Sommers' reaction to the attacks? Again, since the attacks are the only notable actions of Gamergate, trying to separate Gamergate from the attacks is trying to separate the dancer from the dance. Some people in the Confederate States Of America opposed slavery, but that does not change the nature of the Civil War. Of course, Rhoark’s "most" would require reliable sources, and would also require that a reliable determination be made of Gamergate’s composition and their opinions -- none of this can possibly be done and so it cannot possibly contribute to the encyclopedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Both Yiannopoulos and Sommers have stated and have been stated to be supporters of GG, both in setting up the D.C. meet and its bomb threat. And Rhoark has provided plenty of reliable sources, including the NYTimes and WAPost, that clearly delineate that it is "some", not "all" people, in GG engaging in harassment. And absolutely we should be trying to do our best to separate the actions from the motives, in as much as we can from the reliable sources - if we are considering ourselves a neutral academic work trying to teach the controversy, this should be our goal, even if our hands are bound by sourcing policy. We can't do a full breakout as , say, Occupy Wall Street, but we can approach it using existing RSes. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Please provide these sources. Even in the most right wing circles it would be political suicide to state you supported rape threat campaigns. Everything I have seen they are very careful to be supportive of the antifeminist rhetoric/ the conspiracy and collusion claims, but not supporting "gamergate" itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Polygon and Kotaku confirming Yiannopoulos and Sommers organized and attended the meetup. And to them, they do not see GG as a harassment campaign, or at least show awareness that those engaged in harassing are not part of those trying to talk about the ethics angle, but for Sommers, it's about gender/feminism issues (the difference between early feminism goals and more contemporary ones) , and Yiannopoulos, a consumer's revolt . They both show awareness that harassment occurs, agree it is not a valid tactic, but attribute it to a vocal minority that is not part of the core part of GG that is trying to talk about ethics. And it's still remains a claim that GG is only a rape threat campaign. Harassment and threats are the most noted and reported factor from it, but that doesn't mean that is the only reason it exists, as demonstrated by NYTimes and other RSes. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Those sources if anything confirm my initial evaluation "Both have written about GamerGate and have criticized liberal and feminist critiques of video gaming, calling them politically motivated and egged on by a liberal media agenda." Not "Both have supported gamergate" Gamergate is full of men who have no real interest in the video game community. Their only cause is anti-feminism -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

No, they all say they are supporting GG, though state that they support GG as a gender movement/consumer revolt, and both speak out against the use of harassment by the minority of those in the groups. We should not be questioning their intent at all without violating BLP. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

If someone says "I support Hamas's humanitarian works" it is completely unacceptable to present that as "I support Hamas". And it is perfectly legitimate to point out that reliable sources have REPEATEDLY questioned their intent. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Except as has been argued repeatedly here, anyone using the hashtag is part of GG and thus guilty of harassment. You can't have it both ways. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

No sources indicate Sommers has hashtagged for gamergate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I linked one just above but here it is again . --MASEM (t) 15:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You mean the one that explicitely quotes her as stating " I have said some kind words about gamers. But speaking about a group does not mean I speak for them"?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

So she's not a spokesperson, but she still supports GG's motives. And per the definition that some want to use here, anyone that supports GG via using the hashtag is part of the harassment campaign. Which obviously is not correct. It is clear that some people that use the hashtag are directly responsible for harassment, but we can assert from the RSes that there are some different factions within the hashtag, including some members that claim to disapprove and try to stop the harassment while wanting to discuss ethics. That's clear facts we can get from the strong RSes.

Certainly there are sources that believe that the ethics side is a front, but that's not a fact, that's an opinion. It's also the case that even if the ethics side are truthful about not engaging in harassment and wanting to talk ethics, we have numerous sources that indirectly blame them for creating the environment that allows harassment and that by staying with the hashtag, their voices are drowned out by the vocal minority of those engaging in harassment. That's all completely fair claims and opinions, but it doesn't change the fact (pulling from RSes) that the makeup of GG, while vague, can be separated into at least two groups (with possible overlap): the harassers, and the groups that want to talk ethics and claim they don't harass. The actions of the group taken as a whole, as seen by the RSes, are considered deplorable and illegal, but that does not mean all the people within it should be considered the same way. Otherwise, we are associating anyone that has spoken in favor of GG (which includes Sommers, Yiannopolous, Baldwin, TotalBiscuit/John Bain, etc.) with an illegal crime, and that won't fly under BLP with named individuals. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

She supports SOME of GG's ostensible motives and their opposition to feminism. However i am pretty damn sure you will not present any sources stating she supports THE ONLY motive/action that GG is notable for - rape threat campaigns against women-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, since all major sources say one of the motives of GG is about ethics even if that is an obstinatable or disproven claim, it is notable still (just as the claim the earth is flat by Flateaters, their claim may be bogus, but it still is the reason they exist and part of their notability). Yes, the only significant action that we can source and that has come out of the #GG hashtag (which include multiple groups as noted) is the harassment and threats, but that doesn't mean the only motivation is harassment, and our RSes are clear there's at least the ethics angle involved here. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

All the major sources say "ostensible but ethics" and all the major sources that review the "but ethics" utterly dismiss them and so the notability of gamergate is SOLELY from the death and rape threat campaign. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope, absolutely wrong. Even if they said , 100%, the ethics claims were bogus, they have been documented and reviewed and thus exists and thus part of notability of GG. Just because it is wrong does not mean it does not exist. Purposely ignoring as to only claim that the motive is harassment is soapboxing and biasing the sources in a specific way. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Masem, I seriously doubt your WP:COMPETENCE if you think ANYONE would have given ANY coverage to a group, even an actually organized group with a platform and spokesepeople whose objective was "Reviews shouldnt contain cultural critiques!" . The only reason for the coverage is the sustained troll harassment campaign of a scope and scale and vileness far beyond even the typical harassment that exists on the web. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

But because sources have took up looking at the GG situation, they have identified that there is a facet of it about ethics. I totally agree that if there was zero harassment or threats and was simply just chatter on forums and social media about "objective reviews" and other facets of the ethics platform, there would be almost no coverage of GG at all; it certainly would not have spread past the video game media. But because there was harassment, the reliable sources had to look to understand where it came from, and found there was this ethics side. They soundly dismissed all the claims but affirmed there were claims about ethics by a subset of the people using the GG hashtag. As such, we cannot pretend these claims don't exist and that harassment is the only thing GG exists for. Harassment is the only action we can readily document out of what the GG hashtag has show, but the motives are far different. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

No, Masem. No one has found a facet about ethics. They have found ostensible claims of "but ethics" to cover up/excuse/attempt to distract from harassment campaign, but no actual ethics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

No, some sources claim the ethics is a front, but other sources like the NYTimes and WAPost simply state there are people in GG that want to talk ethics, and do not call the ethics a "front". And regardless, that still means there's an ethics aspect. So to present it any other way is purposely twisting the reliable sources to soapbox an attack against against the GG movement to claim they are all directly engaged in harassement. WP cannot do that. The sources do not support this. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Support, in the long term The list of sources is its own can of worms that hasn't even been opened yet. It paints a false picture of unanimity and overwhelming weight, when those sources are actually making distinct points about different parts of the controversy. I think this is a case where a change in the lede first needs to be supported by a change from below. The article needs to explain independently what various ethical claims are, and attach each specific rebuttal to each specific claim. Then a detailed list in the lede will be unnecessary, since the assertions are supported from below. Rhoark (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Support. The sources make it clear that harassment has occurred under the Gamergate banner. But the depiction of the group is usually quite nuanced, and very few (if any?) reliable sources state that the group exists solely to conduct harassment against women. Further, there are now many known supporters of Gamergate who have been named in reliable sources (including developers, critics, journalists, etc.). To suggest that those individuals support a movement whose sole purpose is harassment is, I believe, problematic from a BLP perspective. While it's true that, so far, coverage of Gamergate has focused on harassment, it does not logically follow that Gamergate's sole focus is harassment. I think this is made abundantly clear in the sources, but maybe I'm reading different ones than everyone else. However, no matter how sensible this request is, I do not think this change will receive enough support on this talk page due to reasons that have been repeatedly discussed at WP:AE, so I'll wager that my vote of support is mostly symbolic. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• strong oppose there is no indication of any "membership" of any kind in any source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose As far as I know, Gamergate does not collect membership dues, does not issue membership cards, and does not even have a generally accepted statement of principles that someone can endorse. Accordingly, how can we call someone a "member" of an amorphous disorganized leaderless harassment campaign? Cullen Let's discuss it 00:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Using the word "members" to refer to people in a group is common English (eg "members of the audience"); it does not beg the question if there is official "membership" as one would to an organization, etc. Using members also attributes that the harassment was being done by the people involved, not by the movement (which cannot do anything as a concept). --MASEM (t) 01:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • That knife cuts both ways. How can we describe it as organized harassment if there is no membership? The reality is that Gamergate is not one thing and different groups react differently. The industry did not react the same as Social Justice campaigners. Gamers did not react the same as Industry or Social Justice campaigners. One common thread is that everyone has condemned harassment so it seems very odd to identify anyone as being a member of harassment campaigns. --DHeyward (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

We dont describe it as an "organized movement" and neither do the sources. it is a bunch of trolls striking out against women using a hashtag and some people crying out BUT ETHICS!!! as cover using the same hashtag. thats not a "movement" and its certainly not "organized". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose "teach the controversy"? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • As a neutral encyclopedia our goal is to explain what the controversy is but take no side on it, at all. That means being careful when some sources use superlative claims and other sources - equally as reliable - use more conservative, cautious claims. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Cautious perhaps, but clarity also matters. And I still think your general thrust in this area runs toward OR and SYNTH. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Teaching is not indoctrination. --DHeyward (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The wiki entry is supposed to teach? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Support GamerGate has touched many aspects of gaming including journalism, development, consumers and characters. The harassment campaign is notable but the least compelling. Ultimately it is the beginning of an integration of female gamers, developers, characters and executives in the gaming industry and gamergate is the reason why both social justice revolution and female exclusion has failed. Currently the narrative is the assertion that there has been a social justice revolution but this is not borne out by facts that show existing female role models integrating their presence into game development and hiring. Indie/SJ game developers have never been more irrelevant as the industry reacts to GamerGate as a whole and AAA games provide the experience that the Indie scene thought they dominated. --DHeyward (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Got RS to back this up? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose It is not our job to do public relations spin on behalf of an anti-feminist "movement". Gamergate is known for it's vicious harassment campaign. That's it. Anything else is PR whitewashing that we don't have strong sources to support. There's no membership, no solid plan, nothing - there's no way for us to determine that any one position (including "ethics!") is the actual, real platform of an amorphous, anonymous movement. So we can only look at the actions of the group, which are foul.--Jorm (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This is not PR spinning. This is recognizing that the most reliable sources like the NYTimes and WAPost do not consider the movement solely participating in harassment, which the currently lede implies. These sources are able to make statements that there's factions within GG, there's no reason we can't take the same approach to stay more neutral on the topic. Harassment is still the most apparent output of GG by RSes, no question, but that doesn't mean the only ppl involved in GG are directly engaged in harassment. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong indifference (it's a thing, I swear!) I can't understand all the hubbub and outrage this proposal has caused. The proposed change seems to keep the meaning exactly the same in my eyes. I disagree with Masem's description of the change: "in" and "by members of" both leave the question of how many members were involved present. Neither implies every single person involved in Gamergate is a harasser or in any way quantifies harassment. Bosstopher (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• Normal Oppose This is a silly suggestion. Using 'members' to describe people in an anonymous group that anybody can join/leave at the drop of the hat is not good wording. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 07:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose unless you can specify what characterizes "membership" in an unorganized movement. It is not simply the use of a hashtag on Twitter as there are message boards and blog posts that argue for Gamergate issues that do not use the hashtag. Also, people who argue against Gamergate can use #Gamergate in messages order to identify the subject they are discussing and they are clearly not part of a pro movement.

If a person stops talking on social media about Gamergate, does that mean they no longer support the movement? Membership is self-ascribed which means it is not measurable or documented as we can not get inside people's heads to see if they identify with Gamergate or not. Liz 15:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support According to this article, there were approximately ten thousand people who used this hashtag, only a few of whom have been shown to have engaged in harassment. It is not clear from the body of this article that all these people are guilty of harassment. It is not right to say they all harassed people. This is against the spirit of WP:BLP and constitutes guilt by association. This edit to the lead is a small acknowledgement of this fact. Chrisrus (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Does not improve the article or clarify anything. Artw (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Times article on GTFO

Nothing particularly new. http://time.com/3923651/meet-the-woman-helping-gamergate-victims-come-out-of-the-shadows/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

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