| Revision as of 15:06, 13 October 2015 view sourceBenMcLean (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users878 edits →Lead Sentence Proposal← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:11, 13 October 2015 view source BenMcLean (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users878 edits →Lead Sentence ProposalNext edit → | ||
| Line 150: | Line 150: | ||
| :::::::::I'm good with this lede paragraph proposal- it's a good compromise between a few concerns raised as I see it. ] (]) 01:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC) | :::::::::I'm good with this lede paragraph proposal- it's a good compromise between a few concerns raised as I see it. ] (]) 01:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC) | ||
| Decide what your conclusion is first, and then go find sources after. --] (]) 15:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC) | Decide what your conclusion is first, and then go find sources after. You will know which sources are credible because the credible ones will support your conclusion. --] (]) 15:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == Pro life GamerGate == | == Pro life GamerGate == | ||
Revision as of 15:11, 13 October 2015
| Skip to table of contents |
 | 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 are not subject to any "revert-rule" counting.) Page move requests are prohibited until March 2016. |
 | 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 must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
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:
|
 | 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 |
|
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. |
|
| 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.
removing refs
@Bilby: before removing a ref, please check if it belongs to a nearby sentence. The way editing happened, some sentence were split or spliced together in ways that didn't correct the refs. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- I restored the ref and moved it to the right place. I may have a 1RR problem because of this. Suggestions? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have no problem with seeing it put it where you have placed it. I don't think does anything useful, but it does no harm. - Bilby (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- 1) I had to do two reverts. 2) I'm looking more closely at that ref, and I'm not convinced it's useful. But for the moment, I'm going to take the conservative path and add it where it was supposed to be. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- More thoughts: I think the DailyFish ref is better than the BI ref. I think the BI ref either got most of its content edited out, or that it was used as an extra reference when the edit warring was much worse - when more RS was needed to support an edit. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- 1) I had to do two reverts. 2) I'm looking more closely at that ref, and I'm not convinced it's useful. But for the moment, I'm going to take the conservative path and add it where it was supposed to be. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have no problem with seeing it put it where you have placed it. I don't think does anything useful, but it does no harm. - Bilby (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- It won't be violating 1RR as long as the reverts are in the same consecutive stream of edits- that counts as one revert. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Lead Sentence Proposal
Ever since I first visited this page, I found the first few sentences really muddled, and I left the article more confused about what Gamergate was than when I started. Today I read a neutral one-sentence summary that I feel really crystallizes both sides, and I'd like to propose (with slight re-wording so that it fits in an encyclopedia article) that the lead sentence be edited somewhat to reflect this description:
"Gamergate, an online backlash against progressive influence in gaming which cannot be described neutrally in one sentence. Its supporters say the whole thing was really about ethics in gaming journalism, but the movement gained widespread attention for a subset of Gamergate’s supporters, who conducted several troubling harassment campaigns against women in gaming and journalists."
I'd leave out the striked-through part as I don't feel that fits in a wikipedia article, although that portion could be used later in the article as part of an outline of how difficult it is to define "Gamergate." The whole quote came from this Washington Post article. I'd appreciate editors' thoughts on this. Rockypedia (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- With all due respect, that does not strike me as a good representation of either the content of the article or the bulk of the reliable sources. Thanks for the suggestion, however. Dumuzid (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I realize I didn't frame it the way I'd like to see it worked into the article. I would leave the 1st sentence in the current article as is. Here's what I'd propose as the second sentence:
- "Supporters claim that Gamergate is about ethics in gaming journalism, but the movement gained widespread attention for a subset of Gamergate’s supporters, who conducted several troubling harassment campaigns against women in gaming and journalists, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, and cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian."
- That's more in line with what the content of the article is, and provides a succinct summary of who the two major sides are. As I said, as someone who was unfamiliar with the controversy, the current content did not at all explain to me what Gamergate "was". If you're someone who's intimately familiar with the topic, I think maybe a step back to see how the article reads to the more unfamiliar masses might be appropriate. Rockypedia (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think the current intro does an okay job of summing up the "sides," though it could of course be improved. To me, the question is what is notable about these events, and the reliable sources don't spend much time on the ethics claims. While what you propose might be a good start to "an introduction to #Gamergate," it still strikes me as not in line with the bulk of reliable sources insofar as it puts the emphasis in different places, and thus (to my mind) is not how Misplaced Pages should put it. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable - I would definitely like to see the first two sentences improved, to clarify what Gamergate is about, for people that aren't necessarily knee-deep in the daily goings-on of the gamer world. I have to think that while the majority of people editing this topic appear to be intimately familiar with it, the majority of people visiting this page just to read about it aren't as well-versed. I consider myself a reasonably smart guy, and I was really confused by the first paragraph. Rockypedia (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think the current intro does an okay job of summing up the "sides," though it could of course be improved. To me, the question is what is notable about these events, and the reliable sources don't spend much time on the ethics claims. While what you propose might be a good start to "an introduction to #Gamergate," it still strikes me as not in line with the bulk of reliable sources insofar as it puts the emphasis in different places, and thus (to my mind) is not how Misplaced Pages should put it. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the current introduction does a much better job at summarizing the article, and the reliable sources, than this proposal, which creates a false equivalence between something all sources agree on -- Gamergate’s campaign of misogynistic threats -- and the alleged claims of a small and anonymous faction that everything we know about Gamergate was in fact performed by a subset of Gamergate, and there's another Gamergate out there that is really about ethics and is really the real Gamergate. The Real Gamergate that's really about real ethics sounds real nice, but we can't write about that because almost no really reliable sources discuss it, and it has no notability at all. Meanwhile, the harassment has been discussed in plenty of real newspapers and magazines and continues to afflict real people.
As is my custom when a fresh editor arrives here eager to rebalance the lede, I'd like to remind people that, while Gamergate is at best tenuously termed a "movement", there is no question that it is a terrorist organization -- it is observably organized and its notably operations have been promulgation of highly visible threats to harm women in computing, clearly intended to deter other women from pursuing work in the field. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Whoa, slow down - I'm hardly a "fresh editor", and I happen to agree completely with your point that Gamergate is a terrorist organization. The thing is, I didn't get to that understanding from this article, and certainly not from the lead. I had to go further and one of the articles that actually explained it to me clearly was that Washington Post article. Your point about the "false equivalence" is well taken and well made - I'm glad I came here first before trying to edit the lead on my own, because now I see how that would be a concern. All I'm trying to say is that if you really want to get the message across about what Gamergate really is, the current lead does a poor job of that - not necessarily because it doesn't contain all the info, but because seems to be written for people who already know what Gamergate is, not those looking for info. I'm hoping to help, and get help, improving that. Rockypedia (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Rocky, what do you think of this suggestion to make the first opening sentences less muddled: "The Gamergate controversy concerns a harassment campaign in 2014 that targeted several feminists in the video game industry, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, and cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian. The campaign of harassment was coordinated in IRC channels and online forums such as Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan by an anonymous and amorphous group that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #Gamergate. The harassment was notably sexist, and included the doxing of its targets, threats of rape and death threats, such as a mass shooting threat in protest of a speech featuring Sarkeesian.
" PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Rockypedia:: When I termed you "fresh" I meant, of course, that you were new to this page, not that I wasn’t aware of your long history of contributions. As you probably know, this question appears over and over through the archives, and is raised in some form or other at surprisingly-consistent intervals. The protracted conflicts on this page have, I agree, muddied the lede; the fiercely edit-warred insistence that certain editors know what Gamergate really involves, or that all the notable Gamergate actions derived not from Gamergate but from other people nefariously using the name, muddy it further. We have, at best, weak anonymous sources that claim Gamergate was concerned about ethics; these claims, moreover, make no sense because Gamergate’s actions have seldom concerned ethics. If we want to say, "Gamergate is a terrorist conspiracy", that would be clearer and consistent with the best sources.
- Because Gamergate has no members, no manifesto, and no spokesman, we cannot know what Gamergate really is: we can only know what Gamergate does. I broadly concur with @PeterTheFourth:'s proposal, though I'm sorry to say that the harassment campaign continues. It’s also approaching time for us to seriously consider covering Gamergate’s well-documented efforts to subvert Misplaced Pages. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Gotcha, all good points. Referring back to PeterTheFourth's proposed first sentence - I think that's definitely an improvement. I also feel the attacker's attempts to subvert wikipedia should be documented, and at least alluded to in the lead. My biggest source of confusion was "where did the term Gamergate come from" - and I think including a line that talks about how Gamergate attackers claim that Gamergate was about ethics in game journalism would make sense - as long as it's also made clear, in the same sentence, that that's a spurious claim.
- I do thank you all for treating this seriously, and for all the work that you've obviously done already. Rockypedia (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Do you feel that the description of these concerns in the second paragraph is insufficient, or that it would merely be better placed in the first paragraph of the lede? I'm not sure expansion is viable with the weighting of sources we have, but I'm fine with moving things around a bit. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- A thought: "
The Gamergate controversy concerns a harassment campaign starting in 2014 that targeted several feminists in the video game industry, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, and cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian. Harassment expanded to include journalists they perceived as covering them in an unfavourable and thus unethical light.
" PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)- I think that's a great first sentence. To lessen confusion about who the players are, I would have the second sentence state that the perpetrators claim that they're concerned about ethics in game journalism, but that these claims are without merit, and just a mask for what they're really doing - not those exact words, but that's what I feel would simplify the lead enough to give people a good idea of what's going on with Gamergate. I would write a second sentence, but it's become obvious to me that you are more qualified to do that. Rockypedia (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- A thought: "
- Do you feel that the description of these concerns in the second paragraph is insufficient, or that it would merely be better placed in the first paragraph of the lede? I'm not sure expansion is viable with the weighting of sources we have, but I'm fine with moving things around a bit. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Because Gamergate has no members, no manifesto, and no spokesman, we cannot know what Gamergate really is: we can only know what Gamergate does. I broadly concur with @PeterTheFourth:'s proposal, though I'm sorry to say that the harassment campaign continues. It’s also approaching time for us to seriously consider covering Gamergate’s well-documented efforts to subvert Misplaced Pages. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Final go-over, feel free to make your own suggestion (we're all monkeys on typewriters): "The Gamergate controversy concerns a harassment campaign in 2014 that targeted several feminists in the video game industry, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, and cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian. Harassment expanded to include game journalists that were perceived as covering the harassment in an unfavourable light, and was justified by the perpetrators claim that their targets had behaved in an unethical fashion. The campaign of harassment was coordinated in IRC channels and online forums such as Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan by an anonymous and amorphous group that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #Gamergate. The harassment was notably sexist, and included the doxing of its targets, threats of rape and death threats, such as a mass shooting threat in protest of a speech featuring Sarkeesian.
" (Note: I haven't gone too much into how they believe their targets behaved unethically- I don't want to rehash the second paragraph too much.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Completely oppose this new suggested first paragraph. Firstly the controversy concerns a lot of things not just the harassment campaign. Harassment was however, the most notable aspect. Secondly harassment of game journalists has very little coverage in the actual main body of the article, only a sentence or two about Jen Frank. Brustopher (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- I understand the objection around "include game journalists", but main GG "about ethics" fig-leaf was hung on that. Change "Harassment expanded to include game journalists that were perceived as covering the harassment in an unfavourable light" to something about attacking gaming journalism? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Goring a sacred cow here: Could we remove references to Quinn, Wu, and Sarkessian from lede? While they were the most visible early targets and figures, there were many more figures in involved. e.g. "The Gamergate controversy concerns a harassment campaign in 2014 that targeted several feminists in the video game industry and gaming indusry journalists that were perceived as covering the harassment in an unfavourable light. The campaign was justified by the perpetrators claim that their targets had behaved in an unethical fashion." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- My suggestion is not a good edit, but I hope you get the idea. Gotta run off. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily have an issue with removing Sarkeesian and Wu from the lede. Given that the harassment campaign started with Gjoni getting other internet weirdos like him to attack Quinn, I'm not sure removing her name from the lede is a good idea. I'll think about it- other input is welcome. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- How about starting with "
The gamergate controversy concerns a harassment campaign originating in 2014 that targeted several feminists working in the video game industry. The harassment initially targeted game developer Zoë Quinn, but expanded to include other game developers, cultural critics, and game journalists. The campaign of harassment in protest of a speech featuring Anita Sarkeesian, a critic of sexist attitudes conveyed in video games.
" - I'm unsure if my description of Anita Sarkeesian in the last sentence is accurate- would somebody come up with a better way of phrasing what she does? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- This new version doesn't fix most of the issues raised above. Brustopher (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Do you believe it doesn't address your concerns, or other people's concerns? Feel free to elaborate on what you believe is not being addressed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Firstly, the article itself makes very little mention of journalists being harassed. There's something about Jen Frank but I think that's it. Therefore it would be undue to include such a thing in the lede. Secondly, while the controversy does in part concern a harassment campaign, as the main body shows this is not the whole story. The harassment campaign is only the most notable aspect, which is why I prefer the previous wording. Brustopher (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Do you believe it doesn't address your concerns, or other people's concerns? Feel free to elaborate on what you believe is not being addressed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- The current version appears to provide more informative detail in about the same number of words, and while the current version is not perfectly phrased, this is not without infelicity. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- "The gamergate controversy concerns a harassment campaign originating in 2014 that targeted several feminists game developers and cultural critics in the video game industry. Harassment expanded to include game journalists, perpetrators justified their harassment with claims of unethical journalism. The campaign of harassment was coordinated online by an anonymous and amorphous group that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #Gamergate. The harassment was notably sexist, and included the doxing of its targets, threats of rape, threats of mass shootings and death threats." Perhaps, too severe in the chopping, but some of the specifics are less lede worthy a year out. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm good with this lede paragraph proposal- it's a good compromise between a few concerns raised as I see it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- "The gamergate controversy concerns a harassment campaign originating in 2014 that targeted several feminists game developers and cultural critics in the video game industry. Harassment expanded to include game journalists, perpetrators justified their harassment with claims of unethical journalism. The campaign of harassment was coordinated online by an anonymous and amorphous group that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #Gamergate. The harassment was notably sexist, and included the doxing of its targets, threats of rape, threats of mass shootings and death threats." Perhaps, too severe in the chopping, but some of the specifics are less lede worthy a year out. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- This new version doesn't fix most of the issues raised above. Brustopher (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- How about starting with "
- I don't necessarily have an issue with removing Sarkeesian and Wu from the lede. Given that the harassment campaign started with Gjoni getting other internet weirdos like him to attack Quinn, I'm not sure removing her name from the lede is a good idea. I'll think about it- other input is welcome. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- My suggestion is not a good edit, but I hope you get the idea. Gotta run off. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Goring a sacred cow here: Could we remove references to Quinn, Wu, and Sarkessian from lede? While they were the most visible early targets and figures, there were many more figures in involved. e.g. "The Gamergate controversy concerns a harassment campaign in 2014 that targeted several feminists in the video game industry and gaming indusry journalists that were perceived as covering the harassment in an unfavourable light. The campaign was justified by the perpetrators claim that their targets had behaved in an unethical fashion." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- I understand the objection around "include game journalists", but main GG "about ethics" fig-leaf was hung on that. Change "Harassment expanded to include game journalists that were perceived as covering the harassment in an unfavourable light" to something about attacking gaming journalism? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Decide what your conclusion is first, and then go find sources after. You will know which sources are credible because the credible ones will support your conclusion. --BenMcLean (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Pro life GamerGate
How to tell whether a Twitter user is pro-choice or pro-life without reading any of their tweets - Some interesting data crunching on uptake of a hashtag, the sections regarding the intersection with the #GamerGate hashtag might be useful in examining the overlap of the GamerGate Twitter campaign and social conservatives/right wing "culture warriors". Artw (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- There's a whole body of articles where GG is used as an example or comparison or exemplar for other things (pro-life, harassment, gamers, etc), but there aren't any good RS that state this explicitly to use without getting into SYNTH or OR. I've looked because I think it should be included. It's an interesting phenomena. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Phenomenon. :o) Grammar Nazi (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
David Wolonsky interview
[http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/gaming/2015/10/09/journalist-gamergate-oral-history/73578460/ Q&A: Journalist chronicles 'GamerGate' as it unfolds] - possible source. I particularly like his succinct description of GamerGate, in particular my the bit about perceived harm to videogames which gets to the core of their concerns and avoids misusing the word "ethics". Artw (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- A year out, hopefully there will be more of this kind of analysis. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:55, 10 October 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