Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs) at 14:41, 10 January 2015 (→Wingfield's opinion on Gjoni's blogpost: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 the following WikiProjects:

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

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.

Template:Gamergate sanctions

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

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

Archives

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

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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gamergate (harassment campaign) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Find video game sources: "Gamergate" harassment campaign – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

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

Sanctions enforcement

All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to General sanctions

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement

Why are we citing First Things so much?

I get impression that First Things has inherited the mantle of Erik Kain in the draft article. According to the ref list is now up to five citations. Is it because of the novelty of a conservative view being expressed in a reliable source? --TS 03:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• If it's a reliable source, then what's the problem? The New Yorker is cited at least six times, The Washington Post at least eight, New York at least five, Vox at least seven, Columbia Journalism Review at least eight. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is a first-person opinion column, not a news story, and must be cited as such. I write not because I am a Gamergate partisan—the movement was largely over by the time I had thoroughly investigated it—but because Mary Eberstadt is right: silence emboldens the practitioners of the New Intolerance. Gamergate was not a perfect movement, and neither was the loose coalition of conservatives, libertarians, and contrarians who opposed the social justice incursions into science fiction. But someone ought to speak out. If we wait for a perfect victim to emerge, we will be waiting forever. It's an interesting and useful source for a contrary opinion to the predominant one, but must be presented as such. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I've no problem with it being cited, but I worry that we often fall for a kind of recentism, picking up a novel article and giving it rather more weight than it can bear. The article suffers in such circumstances because one voice is being repeatedly juxtaposed to many others, in a way that gives it presentation false balance. It's a bit like altering our article on global warning to insert at length, and repeatedly, the views of the tiny minority of scientists who reject the well established greenhouse effect. --TS 04:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• The greenhouse effect is a scientific phenomenon. GamerGate is a huge mess. Now, on your "tiny minority" argument, if you'd look at the Misogyny and antifeminism section, we quote over ten sources (including The Washington Post / The Week / Iowa Public Radio / Macleans / Develop / GamesIndustry.biz / On the Media / The Daily Beast / Mother Jones / The New Yorker) who express an anti-GG POV, and you're protesting against one source (perhaps the only one) which provides a dissenting POV? You'd rather have 10-0 versus 10-1, that's balance to you? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

When talking about weight in articles, we don't just talk about how many sources are used, but how frequently these sources are cited and to what extent Misplaced Pages uses these to display information. I believe Tony Sidaway is talking about how frequently the source is cited, not just it being cited (which he seems to not mind.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As I have pointed out above in my first comment, there are at least four more sources which have been cited more than First Things. Upon further reading, the New York Times has been cited seven times in the article, the Verge eight... get my point? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Those sources should be cited more, as they have each written multiple articles discussing the issue which represent the predominant, mainstream point of view on the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

But this is a social issue, not a scientific one. There are multiple ways of interpreting a social issue; there is no need to double down on a single standpoint, especially when one of your principal sources is The Verge, which is a tech blog, not a journal of American society. Shii (tock) 12:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Verge is far more widely read and more respected journalistically than First Things, an explicitly-religious, socially and politically conservative journal. Moreover, there aren't multiple ways of interpreting false allegations about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Shii (tock) 16:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Our article on First Things helpfully describes them. The journal is inter-denominational and inter-religious, representing a broad intellectual tradition of Christian and Jewish critique of contemporary society. With a circulation of approximately 30,000 subscribers, First Things is considered to be influential in its articulation of a broadly ecumenical and erudite social and political conservatism. Meanwhile, The Verge nets at least 20 million unique visitors per month, as of last March, and is almost certainly higher today.

I happen to think First Things is well-written and generally well-argued. But there can be no argument that it's anything but a platform for primarily conservative religious and social views. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there something bad about expressing conservative religious views, that makes them not notable or relevant to American social upheaval? In the lead to that same article, we have a Newsweek quote calling First Things "the most important vehicle for exploring the tangled web of religion and society in the English-speaking world." I would argue that a religious outlook on social issues is more relevant than The Verge which is basically an industry and product review blog. How exactly do we determine who the most relevant voices are in American society? Shii (tock) 17:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The entire article reeks of recentism, and from one side of the discussion as well. There are more sources like First Things out there, we'd be smarter to find more like it than complain about reliable sources that are more accurate than the ones we currently use. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It does not "reek" of one side of the discussion. The "discussion", such as it is, is the general public looking at gamergate and being rightfully thoroughly appalled at the vicious sexist harassment and essentially ignoring idiotic claims of "but ethical journalism will be just presenting 'objective' reviews of games - ie whether or not they are fun" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for demonstrating exactly what I've said. It reeks of one side of the discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

There is only one side, I'm afraid. The minor, dissenting "but ethics" point-of-view is not equatable, and is given the coverage that it is due, per policy. That is all we can do, is go by the reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As noted before, there are multiple sides and facets to this issue, of which only one gets a hearing here, and it's not due to the lack of coverage. This will be dealt with soon, I'm sure. No established editor wants to go outside of the reliable sources, but many of us do want the reliable sources used appropriately. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The best way to make it better is to suggest changes, complete with appropriate sources. If the coverage is there (which I dispute but if it is there) then you should be able to do that.Soupy sautoy (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the well is so poisoned it's better to wait and see if the worst parties are removed from the topic area first. Even questions get you labeled a troll, so right now it's more an awareness thing in hopes some change their tune. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That's been the 8chan/reddit playbook all along; agitate the real Misplaced Pages editors, run to Arbcom for relief, then hopefully return the atricle to all its Quinn/Sarkeesian/Wu-bashing early days It remains to bee seen whether this was an effective strategy or not, hopefully Arbcom was up to the task of drilling down to what really happened here. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

What any outside group wants is not my concern. I'm interested in a neutral article on a controversial topic, and we do not currently have that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually we do have that now, just needs a little quotefarm and bloat cleanup. The focu of the article as the Draft version stands is essentially correct. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The draft article has a very skewed focus that does not reflect the accuracy of the situation, which is a problem that will need resolution eventually. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it does reflect the accuracy of the situation, as per all the reliable sources. Even the movement's supporters (c.f. First Things) admit that Gamergate is effectively dead at this point. The movement has devolved into random swatting, doxing and invective targeting its opponents, and isn't even pretending to be about "journalism ethics" at this point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This is what our article says, yes. The concern is what is actually occurring. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You and others have been repeatedly invited to present the reliable sources which say something else is occurring. That you and others have been unable or unwilling to do so suggests the accuracy of the situation is, indeed, well-reflected by our article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Many have and continue to do so. That the process has largely been driven by bad acting than fundamental encyclopedia building is why many of us, myself included, are taking a more wait-and-see approach. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we have all seen the attempts to present anonymous blogs and Breitbart as acceptable sources for salacious and highly defamatory claims about living people. They continue to not count as reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And I'll join you in continuing to not want to include those sources in there, while continuing to criticize the skew of this article and the behavior that has created the failed article we currently have. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Two of the five times First Things is cited its just a footnote that's been tacked on to something already cited in another source. So it's not really that overrepresented. Bosstopher (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd say that it should just be stripped out. The purpose of the article is not to enumerate every comment anyone has made; the purpose is to give an overarching description of coverage. One blog post by a media commentator does not change that, and it is giving it WP:UNDUE weight to include it without further support that the opinion expressed is significant (eg. similar commentators stating similar things.) Additionally, after looking over it, it was frequently quoted in areas where the quote or opinion it was cited for was tangential to the topic of the paragraph; remember, quotes and cites shouldn't be added simply as a way of indirectly repeating your own opinions in the article, but because they genuinely illuminate noteworthy swaths of the public reaction. I'm not seeing that here. (Remember, we just managed to trim the article down from the QUOTEFARM warning; if people start citing random blogs to argue point / counterpoint against each other by proxy, it'll explode back to there in no time.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oh come on. Any pro-GG POV is obviously the minority, so you're raising the bar to "noteworthy swaths", as well as dismissing the source as a "random blog". This plainly increases the partial slant of the article. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

How long until you get it? You have stated it directly above, as per policy we represent the viewpoints of the subject as they are representative of the mainstream views. Since the mainstream views of the subject are near unanimous in their reception/view, per POLICY, our article will reflect such a view, and ONLY by doing so will the article be/retain its encyclopedic Neutral Point of View. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not what the policy says; we don't pick the predominate opinion and only present that. It will get the most details in the article, yes, but we don't simply omit other opinions. We cannot take any view even if it a near unaminous view taken by reliable sources, and we should be looking for reliable sources that cover the other side of the issue or give counterpoints, as long as those sources are strong reliable sources. I don't think this source qualifies as such, but the point is that to be neutral, we should be trying to find ways to be able to cover counter points if they are minority views; if more than singular sources express these points, we should be discussing them here. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The overwhelming majority of significant viewpoints in reliable sources are quite clear and unanimous and you have failed to provide evidence otherwise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Unanimous in saying what? I feel like we have constructed an imaginary "consensus" here without explaining exactly what sort of views it ought to be able to silence. Is independent analysis that appears in a reliable source somehow "wrong" in its entirety, or is it merely inconvenient because it forces us to engage in critical thought? What specific views are supposed to be "overwhelming", and in which specific sources do they appear? Shii (tock) 21:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Unanimous that gamergate is nothing more than a clusterfuck of online, vicious harassment directed mostly at women that signifies nothing more than the culture wars have reached into gaming. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The First Things article is basically on board with that, so you shouldn't have any objection to it. Shii (tock) 22:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Then we return to Tony's question of Why are we including First Post when we have better levels of sourcing for those claims? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said many times, because it is an outside source providing an independent viewpoint on what the cultural war is and why it is being fought. Shii (tock) 00:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

And then we are back to whether this singular voice is actually representative of a significant viewpoint when we dont have other reliable sources making comments on the same wavelength. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

NPOV is more than just UNDUE. There are several facets of being neutral, and one is impartiality. We should not be approaching this article with the mindset "There is only one major view, everything else is fringe", we instead, to be impartial, need to approach this recognizing that there are many other viewpoints on the situation and we should be trying to find sufficient (in terms of quantity and quality) of sourcing to include those other views to be impartial. Yes, the predominate viewpoint will still be the major fraction of this article, but to take the attitude that because the bulk of the sourcing have settled on one view that we should exclude all other views is not an acceptable way to write a neutral article. --MASEM (t) 22:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

And back to the "but its not impartial!!!!" without being able to actually identify any actual instances of non-impartiality. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

So I take it you want to keep the First Things discussion since it is, after all, impartial. Shii (tock) 22:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The attitude above is exactly the case of not being impartial - we cannot treat the predominate view as the only view , if there are reliable sources that also describe the other views (Which they do). Refusal to acknowledge that there are other views that have the possibility of being sources is a serious problem for editing neutrality. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

We DO cover the "but ethics", probably in far more detail and length than it is given credit the reliable sources . And claims of "impartiality" happening on the talk page are irrelevant to the NPOV policy which covers article content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That's one angle. This source is a different point of view (coming from what appears someone uninvolved in GG). Trying to shut down discussion of these points when there are no immediately bogus issues (likely grossly-insulting BLP or a far-from-reliable source) because you claim that it is a point that won't fit into the article due to UNDUE is a problem; we have to be open to discussing all issues that are completely fair to discuss, unless it is clear that they have been discussed to death in the past. As this is a "new" source, that claim can't be made, and instead it is fair to see what other points align with this source and see if it is worthy of inclusion , as to be impartial to the matter. NPOV may not apply to talk page, but talk page behavior that attempts to bypass discussion as to what aspects of NPOV or other policies apply is not appropriate for talk pages. --MASEM (t) 22:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

then we are back to UNDUE- if the analysis/interpretation is only coming from this one guy, it is probably not a voice /interpretation that we should cover in any level of depth if at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Or we find better sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

We have New York Times, Guardian, PBS, Washington Post, Columbia Journalism Review, Australian Broadcast Company, BBC, On The Media, New York Magazine , Inside Higher Ed... not really sure what "better sources" you might be wishing for. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. Many of the opinions featured in the present article that are strongly against GG are just that of "one guy" (the writer), though when you take their points overall, they'll all in the same broad direction; that is, we right to discuss the broad opinions but we're still overly quoting singular voices representing different facets of that broad opinion. There's just as equal a valid broad opinion favoring GG from reliable sources, and if we're going to feature singular voices from the broad antiGG side then there's no reason to have as much call-to to a singular voice from the proGG side; otherwise, we remove the singular voices - at least those that are not major players in the overall controversy (eg we can including Quinn, or Intel, etc.) - least we admit being not partial and hypocritical. Note that the sources still have to be high quality, and this is not saying that the same amount of ink has to be devoted to the other side because that's against UNDUE, but it is UNDUE and impartial to allow detailed analysis of one side and refuse to allow similar from the other side when the quality of the sourcing is just as good. --MASEM (t) 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(To add, I'd much rather prefer to keep the more detailed points from the higher quality sources on both sides - avoiding quotefarming but touching on core points that only secondary sources on the whole situation can make. But this means allowing those same from the proGG side when they come from a similar high quality source). --MASEM (t) 16:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"There's just as equal a valid broad opinion favoring GG from reliable sources" - Bullshit. Just plain utter unadulterated bullshit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Aquillion's comment here goes to the heart of my concerns. The viewpoint expressed in that essay is an extreme outlier, so all bt most cursory references risk unbalancing our article. Indeed we're using it in several places to gainsay the overwhelming weight of informed opinion. --TS 19:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the viewpoint is different does not change the fact that First Things is one of the most reliable and notable sources when it comes to analysis of American civic life, and is far more noteworthy than the likes of Vox and The Verge. Shii (tock) 21:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I note that User:Tarc has now removed the content twice despite the fact that he has neither justified his characterization nor indeed participated in this discussion at all. Shii (tock) 21:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Most reliable and notable according to whom? It's a religious magazine with a small readership as far as I can tell. Let's not over weight it. — Strongjam (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI, you can find First Things in any American library that carries political journals, alongside similar publications like The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, and the New York Review of Books. If you ever read a book about religion in America after 1990 you will probably see it mentioned. It's not my fault that you haven't heard of it; you only have to read the first two paragraphs of its Misplaced Pages article to see that it is far more relevant to encyclopedic summaries of cultural commentary than tech blogs. Shii (tock) 21:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, a religious journals take on a controversy founded in the technology world is not as relevant as a major technology news site take on it. It's useful, but it shouldn't be so heavily weighted. — Strongjam (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't think that the tech blogs have too much weight in the draft article or that they are biased (after all, we have the NYT and New Yorker in agreement), but they are very close to the controversy and deserve a bit of balance with an uninvolved attempt to frame the controversy in light of culture wars more generally. First Things should be considered more notable than, for example, Anders Sandberg's academic analysis which he posted on his blog, and which we currently devote a full paragraph to. Shii (tock) 21:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Geez, hysterics much? I have been following the discussion throughout, and saw little need to post a "I agree" post. But if it will make you feel better, I agree with the sentiments of Aquillion and TS. Happy? Tarc (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Please explain to me in what way I am being hysterical. Shii (tock) 21:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Your Downton Abbey-esque "my goodness, the dear chap protests without communication!" above. This is a fringe, minor point-of-view being giving more prominence that it deserves, now being edit-warred over by single-purpose accounts. This is what we're trying to get out of this topic area. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Blog discussion

• Whether the First Things article was religious or not (having read it, I don't see the religion stuff), First Things Is a journal which critiques society and GamerGate is part of that. The relevance of the source shouldn't mbe questioned .Likewise the claim that it's a random blog should be nullified, lest we trim all "random blogs" from the article. I'd say First Things should have a lot more say on "social justice" than Vox. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • But it is one blog post in a journal only tangentially related to videogames or journalism. The reason we cite such commentators is to explain noteworthy coverage, responses, and analysis about the subject; when the overwhelming majority of commentary agrees on something, it is naturally noteworthy, and we need large numbers of citations to establish that. On the other hand, when one person writes a blog post disagreeing (even if it were a noteworthy blog), giving them this sort of extensive focus amounts to WP:UNDUE weight; our article is not meant to be a catalog of every blogger's opinions on the topic, nor a place where people can fire off quotes from various blogs as a form of point-counterpoint; rather, it is meant to summarize the noteworthy views. Nothing about First Things gives me any impression that their views on this controversy are intrinsically noteworthy simply because this blog is saying them; nor, thus far, has anyone made a particularly compelling argument that the personal opinions this blogpost expresses are noteworthy in their own way the way (eg.) the large-scale reactions summarized elsewhere in the article are. Therefore it is mostly non-notable in the context of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @User:Aquillion -- are you aware that The Verge and Vox are also blogs? By the standard you just employed, everything cited to those sources should be removed from the article as well. Shii (tock) 13:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bund

I found a new source from a liberal swiss newspaper that offers a non partisan view of Gamergate including these interesting tidbits

1. Misplaced Pages Vandalism
2. How Gamergate members see every negative press mention in the mainstream media as a conspiracy against them (thus justifying the conspiracy category)
3. How involved Journalists and Critics see gamersgate as a loud minority.
4. Jimmy Wales telling both sides to calm down.
5. A Big Group of gamers distancing themselves from the organised Harassment. A small number of members feeling that the gamergate hashtag is compromised who therefore want to start a new hashtag.

its a start to the recentism issue. Avono (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It's from October (not necessarily a problem) and the article consistently misspells Gamergate (also not necessarily a problem, given it's a German language newspaper). What does it add to the topic, in your opinion? --TS 03:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no such misspelling, it's probably your translator. I'd say the five points Avono above are what he thinks it adds? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• 2. Die Aktivisten und Unterstützer von Gamergate wähnen sich im Krieg gegen eine mediale Grossverschwörung, die «Gamer» als Sexisten brandmarken wolle und Vorwürfe um Interessenkonflikte der Spielepresse ignoriere.
• 3. Betroffene Journalisten und Kritiker sehen dagegen eine lautstarke Minderheit von Verschwörungstheoretikern am Werk and Der eigentliche Streit entzündete sich aber an einer Reihe von Artikeln über den Begriff «Gamer»: Verschiedene Onlinemagazine konstatierten, die Gameridentität werde von einer kleinen Gruppe vereinnahmt, die sich durch pubertäres und reaktionäres Männlichkeitsgehabe auszeichne.
• 5. Ein Grossteil der Spieler distanziert sich allerdings von den organisierten Hassaktionen. Einzelne Vertreter sind sogar der Meinung, man müsse den durch die Hasskampagne kompromittierten Begriff «Gamergate» aufgeben und ein neues, einendes Banner finden.

Yes, it was my translator. Don't we already cover these points in much greater depth, and with due weight, in the article? Some of the major mainstream press commentaries came after that Swiss article was written. --TS 19:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Tony Sidaway: - I believe (2) is not covered in too much detail in the Draft. Given the mess of the article I'm not sure where (5) is covered. I see (5) is covered but I'm not sure whether it's in the correct place. I covered (5) for the misogyny section. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the culture war stuff from the point if view of Gamergate supporters could be expanded from Jesse Singal's piece in New York magazine. He pays some attention to the conspiracy theories. I thought we used him as a source. If we don't use him for (2) we ought to be, because he really did a good job of investigative journalism. --TS 17:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Article is there (refname NYMag,) we source it mostly to talk about how hard it is for journalists to nail down what GG is. Could be used more for the conspiracy bit though and as well anti-feminism section. — Strongjam (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Alleged

"The controversy began after indie game developer Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleged that Quinn had a romantic relationship with Nathan Grayson, a journalist for the video game news site Kotaku." How is the relationship alleged when both have admitted to it? GameLegend (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The word allegation is correct in this context. It does not reflect on whether it is true or not, just that the ex-boyfriend made the claim. — Strongjam (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Some people misinterpret the term to signify a dubious claim. Perhaps we should use the plain word "claim" here, because "alleged" seems to be a frequently misunderstood word.

The current draft version at Draft: Gamergate controversy has the following phrasing:

Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a "strange, rambling attack", containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson. This led to false allegations from Quinn's detractors that the relationship had resulted in Grayson publishing a positive review of the game.

The word "claim" would fit equally well instead of "allege" in the above, I think. It would be less prone to misinterpretation. --TS 14:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, as long as we don't lose that the follow on allegations by others about the positive review were false. — Strongjam (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Both should be made very clear.

Making it seem as if the basis of the conflict were allegations in the 'unproven' sense is as dishonest as saying there was a positive review. GameLegend (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The "allegations" about consenting adults having a relationship is of non-encyclopedic value, whether the "allegations" are true or not. The only matter of any potential public interest would have been if the relationship impacted what was printed in the press. It did not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"Kotaku's editor-in-chief Stephen Totilo affirmed the existence of a relationship, but clarified that Grayson had not written anything about Quinn after the relationship had commenced and had never reviewed her games, though he did acknowledge a piece written before the two began their relationship." It's already in there, because of its impact on what was printed in the press. Bosstopher (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue is the actual importance of whether a particular allegation is true or not. I've wrestled with this idea personally, but frankly, it would be inappropriate to say X is a true claim even if technically it is. Even if objectively true, if X is at best tertiary to the issue at hand, it would be inappropriate for Misplaced Pages to say, in the voice of an encyclopedia, that X is true. Thus, the fact that X is true is important only so far as it cannot be separated from other allegations that are in fact false. When it cannot be, it would be inappropriate to label all allegations included as false because all allegations include X. When X can be appropriately separated from the actually false allegations, though, it is both appropriate and frankly the responsibility of a good editor to label such allegations as false. It is a very tight line, and it surely does require some... finesse... with the english language, but it is a requirement for good editing to walk that line and not fall on either side, while hedging on the side of "do no harm."

Frankly, whether you ascribe that this topic is about "harassment" or "ethics," the truth of X is at best tertiary, and not central to either topic and should be kept that way, save for my note above, of when such allegation cannot be appropriately separated. (Note, as I wrote the above before RedPen's comment: While I in general agree with RedPen here, I reserve the right to disagree if such reasoning is taken to an extreme. There are some times when X may have encyclopedic value, but I agree that for at least 95% of the cases, here, X is inappropriate.) Ries42 (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

For instance, I agree with labeling X as false as far as it leads to it did not impact whether a review was published following X. Whether X impacted anything that was printed is a bit grayer. Regardless, it is inappropriate for WP to explore that, it is more appropriate for another medium to discuss those possibilities, should they exist. Ries42 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed before, about a month ago. There's a difference between multiple sets of allegations that the article (and draft) fails to properly separate, making the whole thing factually inaccurate and confusing and still hasn't been resolved and probably won't be due to the entrenchment on the issue, encyclopedic value aside. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

There are only two allegations which are relevant to this issue: the allegation by Gjoni that Quinn had a relationship with Grayson (true, but we can't present their relationship as "wrong" in any sense, given the fact that the breakup drama amounts to a lovers' quarrel and is of no public interest, as demonstrated by the way the reliable sources treat it) and the allegation by others than this relationship led to positive reviews or coverage (wholly and entirely false, as per the reliable sources). Whatever other allegations Gjoni may have made are irrelevant, as demonstrated by the fact that reliable secondary sources have wholly ignored them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I (mostly) agree with NBSB here. I would probably completely agree if he just said "Did it lead to a positive review". That is patently false, if for no other reason that said review does not and never existed because Mr. Grayson did not write it. Whether it lead to "positive coverage" is a bit more sticky because there is some dispute over the timelines and I personally would have more difficulty labeling that definitively false in Misplaced Pages's voice. With that being said that dispute does not belong in the WP article, and without a proper, reliable source that challenges said allegation, it would be inappropriate to focus on that distinction here. Ries42 (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Note, my above comment was made toward NBSB's original comment, not his slightly edited version that exists now. Ries42 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a precision of wording issue. The only 100% "false" accusation is that Quinn used her relationship with Grayson to get positive reviews of her game - no reviews exist, so this obviously can't be the case. On the accusation that Quinn used her relationship with Grayson to garner general positive press has not been proved false, but it has been readily dismissed or not considered as having much truth, since the only piece about DQ involving Grayson was the that game dev bit that DQ was written up in, with Kotaku'e claim the relationship started after this event. There are those proGG that do not trust the Kotaku timeline in this matter, thinking the January article was too close to the April data claimed as the start of the relationship (with their claimed evidence that Quinn and Grayson were at least friends in social manner prior), and no one has actually providing any clear demonstratable evidence that this Game jam article was or was not influenced one way or another. Of course, most reliable sources don't take this position, but it is fair that in terms of language precision, that allegation was not proven false, but simply debunked, refuted, or any other wording that says "it really didn't happen as suggested by the allegation", but not 100% with absolutely surety as "false". There is a singular false allegation, but the "allegations" GG has made as a whole (which GG also include the other claims Gjoni made in his post) have generally been either refuted/debunked or treated as non-nonessential or petty in regards to the larger GG matter - but not all "false" (we have no information either way to affirm or deny these issues). The goal should be to make sure it is clear we attach "false" to the plurality of accusations, but be clear that the popular press opinion is that they are all for the most part refuted or the like. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The reliable sources unanimously dismiss the idea that there were any ethical issues created by Quinn and Grayson's relationship, and treat any such allegations against them as false and malicious. The end. A sampling of those sources, as entered into evidence at the arbitration proceeding, is here: . Our article must and will treat this as a settled matter. Whether "proGG" people "trust the Kotaku timeline" is a matter of no consequence whatsoever. Our articles are based on what reliable sources say, not what some people might believe because they're ideologically committed to a particular point of view. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Really NBSB? This fight again?

"sleeping with a journalist for positive reviews. The claim, though false," NYTimes - Positive Reviews: False, Positive Coverage: not mentioned

"hurled false accusations that Quinn exchanged sex for reviews" Telegraph, Positive Reviews: False, Positive Coverage: not mentioned

"prompting accusations from others she had done so in an attempt to get positive reviews for her game, Depression Quest. While the relationship happened, the review did not." BBC, Positive Reviews: False, Positive Coverage: not mentioned

"how she had seduced him for favorable coverage (the wench!). In reality, though, the writer in question had mentioned Quinn in an article once, before their involvement, and had never reviewed anything of hers. Boston Globe, Positive Reviews: False, Positive Coverage: ... Semi-Confirmed?

"It’s a movement based in false accusations against Quinn — that she traded sexual favors to advance her career — and mushroomed from there." Washington Post, Positive Reviews: False, Sexual Favors to Advance her Career: False, Positive Coverage: You can probably say this leans toward them saying that was false, but it is not explicitly stated that way.

"during which false accusations about indie game developer Zoe Quinn led to personal harassment and death threats against her and those who offered public support" CBS Chicago Local, States "false allegations" but does not say which false allegations it is talking about. As there are false allegations (and true allegations) it would be hard to definitively state it is refering to the non-false allegations and only the confirmed false allegations without more.

"angry boyfriend’s post led to accusations that Quinn had a romantic relationship with a video game critic for the gaming website Kotaku." Bloomburg, doesn't even label them false, just says 'accusations' of a romantic relationship.

"Zoe Quinn was accused by an angry ex-boyfriend of sleeping with someone in order to get good reviews for her game. And despite the fact that she was able to refute these allegations, it kind of stirred up quite an online backlash towards her." ABC, Refuted allegations of "good reviews".

"was accused by her ex-boyfriend of trading sexual favors for receiving positive game reviews. Those false charges" Positive Reviews: False, Positive Coverage: not mentioned

Am I splitting hairs? Maybe, but every single one of those references ONLY refers to positive reviews. Only one can possibly be read to possibly include false coverage. And at least one semi-confirms that positive coverage may have resulted from the relationship. What those references do not do is what you say they do, which is label all allegations of positive coverage as false. Ries42 (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're splitting hairs. The upshot is that reliable sources unanimously reject the allegations against Quinn and Grayson and repeatedly note that their relationship did not create any ethics violations. As those allegations are the only ones mentioned in reliable sources, they're the only ones we consider meaningful and the only ones we will mention. That's all there is to it. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

They repeatedly make that point in one way, using very specific language. There were no "positive reviews". They didn't make it in "every way possible". The fact is, there is a very specific wording that is common in many of those articles. We should use a very similar, very specific wording. "False allegations that the relationship lead to positive reviews" There isn't any argument over that type of wording. When we try to extend that to "positive reviews" AND "positive coverage" we are saying something that the reliable sources are specifically not saying. What they do not say is just as important as what they do say. Ries42 (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

They are synonymous to everyone except you, and the unquestionable point made by the reliable sources — that Quinn and Grayson's relationship created no violations of journalism ethics — is obvious to everyone who is not a committed die-hard Gamergate supporter who just cannot stop clinging desperately to the idea that something they believe in is true, when it is absolutely 100% false. Gamergate's founding mythology was exploded months ago by literally every major news media outlet on the planet, and I'm sorry, but that's just the end of the story. The rest of the world has long since moved on and we are not going to rehash long-discredited attacks on living people just because some people can't deal with the fact that their ideology is built on a foundation of sand. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Synonymous, but not identical. Different words, although similar, can have different meanings and connotations. While in everyday parlance the distinction may be minor, as editors of an encyclopedia it is important to use the most correct word when using a similar, but not necessarily correct, synonym may lead to a misrepresentation.

To your edit(s): Please leave your bad faith accusations somewhere else. Show me the source, and if the source doesn't support your allegations, don't instead start using ad hom accusations at me. Show me where a source supports YOUR wording, and we're done. Ries42 (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not Misplaced Pages's fault that Gamergate supporters hitched their wagons to a false narrative, launching their "campaign" based on unverified attacks, an ex-boyfriend's ranting blog, false assumptions and thinly-disguised slut-shaming and misogyny. We're done here because the reliable sources are done with Gamergate. All of the movement's efforts have succeeded in nothing more than convincing Intel to invest a small country's GDP in supporting diversity in gaming, including Anita Sarkeesian. I know that must be hard to deal with, but the solution is not to yet again bring up long-discredited attacks on Zoe Quinn. We're just not going to go there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? How does that have anything to do with this issue? Ries42 (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Your single-minded obsession with negatively portraying Zoe Quinn suggests that you're not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to further some sort of off-wiki dispute or obsession with her. You have precisely one contribution in your entire editorial history not related to Gamergate. That's what it has to do with this issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a bold allegation. Also a complete fabrication. The dispute here is simple, is there a difference between "positive reviews" and "positive coverage". One, there is CLEAR support for. I have completely agreed to that multiple times. The other the support is very dubious at best, and it would be a misrepresentation to say otherwise. Your inability, or unwillingness, to see that only says things about you.

To your EDIT: Everyone starts somewhere. In fact, I have not made a single edit to an article related to Gamergate. If you want to get technical, 100% of my article editing history is completely non-Gamergate related. I have participated in discussions only. Ries42 (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Are we arguing about the draft article? Because at the moment I don't think we even touch the positive coverage aspect of it. Which is probably how it should be as it doesn't get much weighting in our sources. — Strongjam (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Amen. But apparently, according to NBSB you're a ProGG zealot if you believe that. Ries42 (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the most bizarre things about this talk page is the amount of times massive arguments have broke out between editors on issues where they completely agree about article content. Bosstopher (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The obsession with the details of Zoe Quinn's sex life are not relevant to the subject of corruption in videogame journalism. I'm sure that most (if not all) journalists have relationships with game developers and representatives of game companies. Why people have obsessed about one woman's sexual history instead of looking at the larger picture of collusion between journalists and game companies is baffling to me and, at best, seems voyeuristic and more than a little disturbing. If this kind of relationship is so central to this narrative, why are people not investigating the sex lives of journalists to see if they HAVE positively reviewed the games of other companies or developers? No, it is only Quinn whose life goes under the microscope.

Unless such behavior has crossed the line into criminal behavior, I don't see the relevance of presenting details about the sex life of someone whose participation in the controversy has been as a victim of harassment. Liz 23:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone on this page (for the most part) disagrees with you. I would state that some details are relevant simply for the fact that many reliable sources place the origins of this "controversy" at the point where the "zoepost" was released. The zoepost then lead to the ethics allegations and harassment of Quinn and others. I think you could make the case that perhaps there have been other investigations into the "ethics" side of this whole controversy, but those investigations have largely not been notable or covered by reliable sources, if they exist. As such, there isn't too much about them that could be put into this article. Ries42 (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Wingfield's opinion on Gjoni's blogpost

Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a "strange, rambling attack", containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson

Currently we are using a New York Times quote to comment on Gjoni's blogpost as a "strange, rambling attack". The quote comes from a Bits blog post by Nick Wingfield from Oct 2:

In a phone interview, Ms. Alexander, who also consults for independent game makers, said that “Intel was fleeced by a hate mob.” She said she wrote her opinion piece because of the online treatment of Zoe Quinn, an independent game maker who was the subject of a strange, rambling attack written by a former boyfriend in August.

In context it's not clear whether the quote reflects Wingfield's own or Leigh Alexander's opinion.

Two weeks later another article by Wingfield is published in the more prominent Technology section of New York Times. This article also appears in the print version. Here Wingfield uses a milder wording as before and describes Gjoni's blogpost as a "rambling online essay". We should prefer the wording of the second article over the first, because it's less ambiguous, more recent and was published more prominently. - preceding unsigned comment by User:Maklaan at 01:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support - thanks for bringing this up. Yeah, the Bits Blog is less reliable than the later Technology article. Wingfield's opinion also has more "distance" from the controversy. Leigh Alexander is already 'proven' to be partisan against gamers, as per the Gamasutra piece she wrote which this GamerGate article depicts. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"rambling online essay" is okay, as long as we don't lose the fact that it was fundamentally a character assassination. That it was effective in its context is undeniable. The victim of the attack is still suffering and may blamelessly suffer throughout her life. We should be careful to avoid understating the savagery of the attack on Zoe Quinn, and the extent to which the attacker was complicit in the ramifications for months beyond the original malicious attack. We don't rely on that particular article to support the fact of the savagery or it ramifications. --TS 01:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Then we might also add Eric Johnson's discussion on Re/code, Her accuser comes off more as an angry, unbalanced ex than a responsible watchdog. Or The Verge's description of it as a screed. Or The Age's discussion: It's such a wretched, sleazy business that there's little surprise this latest septic eruption of Internet misogyny escalated from a jilted boyfriend, a programmer by the name of Eron Gjoni. He had been dating a game developer called Zoe Quinn and then in the way of these things, Eron and Zoe were dating no more. We've all been there, and like many of us Eron did not cope well. He said a lot of spiteful, nasty things. Or Vox: Eron Gjoni, who had dated Quinn, posted a revenge blog accusing her of cheating on him with Nathan Grayson. The point is that Gjoni's post was not a dispassionate note but a highly personal diatribe by a deeply involved person — reliable sources view it not as some sort of altruistic whistle-blowing but as an act of spiteful drama-dumping revenge. If you'd prefer that we paraphrase that clearly-expressed sense of the reliable sources, I'm not opposed to doing so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm looking for opinions with has more "distance" from the controversy ... also known as ... mainstream media. Of which, I believe only the Age qualifies above, but does the Age say anything specific? I went to check, so He said a lot of spiteful, nasty things is not necessarily referring to that exact blog post. The exact wording to describe the blog post is he unloaded his grief online, alleging that his ex-girlfriend had sex with a critic who then wrote a friendly review of her game. (Note, this didn't happen). starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Age's summary is most on the mark. I don't think either "strange, rambling attack" or "online essay" is a decent summary. Neither one gets to the point of how personal the blog post is. It (1) accuses ZQ of serial infidelity and (2) publicizes a large number of private break-up related conversations, (3) under the flimsy pretense of "alerting the community" -- an ingenuity that became typical of GG itself. I agree with NBSB that it's an incisive drama dump that poses as "altruistic whistle-blowing." Shii (tock) 02:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Shii, NorthBySouthBaranof per sources below "rambling online essay" or one of the proposals by Ries42 do reflect the media's opinion better. If you were still opposed to it, could you give further explanation. -- Maklaan (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

As per the sources below and here, here, here and elsewhere, no. "Spiteful, rambling essay" would be fine. Gjoni clearly intended the post as an attack on his ex-lover, and the description of that is apt and necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I think "spiteful" is too harsh, especially considering you want to include it because "Gjoni clearly intended the post as an attack". The majority of sources does not make that implication. While the sources you posted did use the word, there are many more and better sources, which choose a milder or even neutral wording. Keep also in mind, that it's a WP:BLP issue and we should be careful to include harsh judgments. There is also a WP:SYNTH problem with "Spiteful, rambling essay".-- Maklaan (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"spiteful" is a mild description for spewing allegations about your ex all over the web because she dumped your sorry ass. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• How much discussion on this blog post do we want to have exactly? More than one comment may be WP:UNDUE or else we may be making it more that what it is. Whats next, dueling quotations on what everyone feels about it? Its unimportant to the big picture and it would be irresponsible to give thezoepost more than that, for fear of BLP issues related to Ms. Quinn or Mr Gjoni. Support the updated NYTimes wording, but Oppose adding anything more beyond that. I may support an different wording if it is proposed in alternative to the NYTimes wording, but I don't quite see that above. Ries42 (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Most of the coverage of GamerGate in reliable sources indicates that the controversy fundamentally grew out out of harassment against Quinn in particular in response to that blog post; it eventually expanded to other targets, especially Wu and Sarkeesian, but the blog post is still at the heart of the subject's coverage in reliable sources today. Obviously, we have to be careful not to become part of the attacks against Quinn (or any other living person), which means that we have to be very careful to use the most reliable sources in that section and remove anything defamatory; but I don't feel it is possible to cover GamerGate coherently without going into extensive detail on how Quinn was attacked. --Aquillion (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

other options:

• Long Diatriabe
• rambling 9,000-word essay
• an angry online rant
• rambling blog post
• a big rant
• a 9000-word rant
• a nearly-10,000-word screed
• a vicious attack
• a dirty-laundry double load of drama-laden chats
• the blog post that sparked the controversy set a misogynistic tone.
• 9,000-word screed

"Rant" seems to be the descriptor of choice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Long diatribe" (NYTimes) "rambling online essay" (NYTimes) both seem to be the most reliable sources here, and look to be the most acceptable, neutral descriptors. "Rambling blog post" (ABCNews), "rambling 9,000-word essay" (Businessweek), seem acceptable as well. If anything rambling seems to be the most common descriptor. The other ones seem to be a bit less reliable and/or perhaps a bit less neutral. My issue being there may be BLP issues against Eron Gjoni to attack him too much with how we choose to describe the essay. Ries42 (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

From what I can gather mentions of its length and ramblyness pop up more than anything else, although stuff like "screed" and "rant" both pop up a significant amount too. To avoid sampling bias in the quotes people are selecting, below are descriptions of the Zoepost from the first 50 sources used in the mainspace article :

Bosstopher (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

One thing I think we should avoid is deciding to take the "average" words and make a WP voiced comment on what the blog post is. Saying "it was a long, rambling rant" while maybe the most accurate after looking at every source, is never said exactly by any source. The closest, reliable source we can get to that wording (which mentions both its length and 'rambling') should be the one used.

• Propose "rambling online essay" by NYTimes. It includes rambling and an "online essay" is more indicative of length than Guardian's "rambling blog post," although BusinessWeek's "rambling 9,000-word essay" may work on both points as well. Ries42 (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I say we just avoid trying to find a good quote everyone is happy with and WP:ASSERT that it's a rambling blog post. I've given it a go in the draft article — Strongjam (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I 100% disagree with this. You've just asserted, in WP voice, that it is a FACT that it is a rambling blog post. The only fact there is its a "blog post" the rambling part must be attributed because it is a subjective opinion. The point of this is to find the most neutral, but still subjective, opinion and source it. With that being said, we have a source that calls it a "rambling blogpost," the Guarding. Add a source, and you're golden. You can either say, "described by the Guardian as a "rambling blog post"" or perhaps "a blog post that several commentators have described as "long" and "rambling" of which we have several sources for those descriptors. In no event, though, should any subjective descriptor be in WP's voice. Ries42 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Self-reverted, but I disagree. It's widely described as rambling and there is no dispute about that in our sources, it's a perfect candidate for WP:ASSERT. — Strongjam (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Multiple sources on rambly. Zero sources identifying it as "concise" . WP:ASSERT. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD and Strongjam: The blogpost is not factually "rambling". It's an opinion (held by many commentators). Because it's an opinion Ries42 suggestions follow the guidelines of WP:ASSERT, while Strongjam's edit does not. Strongjam's edit would imply the blogpost being "rambling" is a fact. -- Maklaan (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is factually rambling (long and without clear direction.) There is no dispute about that, reliable sources accept that as true. Per WP:ASSERT that's a fact. — Strongjam (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not factually rambling. It is a commonly held opinion that it is rambling. It is a fact that it is a blog post. Per WP:Assert When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. An opinion does not become a fact simply because it is commonly held by a group. While opinions can become fact, generally there needs to be an empirical or objective reason for such. For instance, it may have previously been an opinion that the earth was round, but it has become a fact after it was objectively observed or proven. While we can agree that the opinion is not subject to serious dispute here, an adjective such as rambling is "commonly considered to be subjective" and as such, should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds that opinion. Ries42 (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Just because it is an opinion, though, does not mean we need to counter-source it with an opposing opinion. To my knowledge, there isn't a reliable source that makes such a counter argument, and even if there were, it would likely be WP:Undue and in the vast minority. However, the lack of a counter opinion does not raise the initial opinion to the level of a fact. Ries42 (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is FACTUALLY a vicious attack per FOX News . It is FACTUALLY a 9000-word rant per the SMH It is FACTUALLY rambling by ABC News and to anyone with 2 brain cells who looks at it. WP:ASSERT -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You can't just yell ITS A FACT and WP:ASSERT as if that ends the conversation. Its like you haven't even read Assert. I quoted it above and here, with my own emphasis added When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. There is no way to objectively define something like this. It doesn't exist. Its an opinion that its rambling, even if it is a commonly held opinion. Facts are concrete. The earth is round. The sun is hot. The post was made on a blog. Facts. Facts can be subjective, but generally only in the first person. If Person A says they're sad, this is a subjective fact. If Person B says Person A is sad, no matter how true it might be, it is still an opinion because Person B can never truly know Person A's mental state. Ries42 (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are going down that rabbit hole "Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post described by everyone who read it as a rambling attack". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep citing essays, as if they say exactly what you want. You're wiki-lawyering more than I am. I'm pointing out that the things you're citing as authority don't say what you're saying they do, after reading them. You don't get to cite an essay, as if you're correct, then call me a "wikilawyer" when I then say you're using that essay incorrectly. The fact remains, for that wording, you need a Citation. Especially if you're going to call it a "rambling attack" which is much less supported than "rambling blog post or online essay". Further, "everyone"? That's a huge assumption that requires an equally huge amount to back it up. Hell you could keep most of that wording and just change some things slightly to be neutral. "Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post described by many commentators as "rambling" and "long". " No need to use inflamatory words. Ries42 (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it that hard to distinguish between fact and opinion? "posted online" = fact. "____ words" = fact. "rambling" = opinion, because not everybody might read the post and think of it as so. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"not everyone"? ummmmmmm no. there is no one who would not agree to "rambling".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The primary targets MUST be mentioned in the lead section

There cannot be any summary of the GG controversy without mentioning who the primary targets are. And we CAN use their names and not attempt to erase them via the GG LW strategy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn is mentioned by name 47 times in this article, and has large sections of the article that are centered around her. Anita Sarkeesian is mentioned 21 times. Brianna Wu is mentioned 9 times. Given that the lede is meant to be a summary of the article, I see no reason reason why they (or at the very least Quinn) should not be mentioned by name in the lede. Bosstopher (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The lede is "extra" short in our case because there are a lot of tangents in the article; the current length, WP:LEAD would suggest we have 3 paragraphs but to go into any more detail on any specific elements gets us into describing details that are very hard to summarize. As such, to keep the smaller details of the lead as to provide a quick overview has been made to the lead. This has included removing the names of the three primary harassed figures, not because they aren't critical to the story, but simply that at this point, well beyond their initial involvement, the story isn't about those three specifically anymore but the general use of harassment as a silencing tool by their critics that claim to represent GG - that fact which is captured in the lead. They are important to the story as an historical perspective, but they aren't the reason that GG is still discussed (its the ongoing use of harassment that's central). We keep the lede cleaner and sustinct by avoiding that potential rabbit trail, leaving it to the body to explain this part. --MASEM (t) 17:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh get real. Not one piece of coverage of GG does not name the targets. It would indeed be a NPOV violation for our lead to break with ALL of the sources in such a manner and to omit this major portion of the content of the article. We are not participants in GG's efforts to erase the presence of women. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not an NPOV in terms of the lede (in the body, of course it would be completely wrong to omit them). And I've seen plenty of GG articles of more recent that omit Wu and in some cases Sarkeesian, focusing that it was the allegations against Quinn that set the thing in motion and then her name is dropped. They were, unintentionally, catalysts of the situation and important to the history but in the larger picture, what the controversy is, they were early names but aren't part of that bigger picture on the situation. I'm not saying they aren't important, but in the choice we have made for a very concise lead to avoid rabbit trails of details that would have to be introduced, omitting their names in the lead (in favor of explaining that a series of harassment against numerous people including female game professionals) is an allowable editing choice that does not violation any policy and helps to make the lede read better and direct to the point. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No, "omitting their names" is not "allowable editing choic" , it is a step in the GG LW playbook. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If we explain that we then need to explain all the other steps in the GG playbook in the lede (including all the various "Operations', etc) to be neutral, which I'm pretty confident we don't want to do. We cut two paragraphs that when into a history of the details of GG for this reason, to avoid getting into what is a complicated history of events, to focus on the crux of the controversy - "ethics" vs hostile harassment. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No one said we need to explain their playbook in the lead. We just dont need to be accomplices. And your concern about getting dragged into the rabbit hole is addressed by not getting dragged into the rabbit hole, not by pretending that rabbits dont exist. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You just said it right there, its part of the GG playbook, so if we're going to cover that, we would need to cover the rest, otherwise we are being overly selective for a neutral source. And we're not ignoring anything - the harassment against female game professionals - just not named ones - is still cited as the reason that GG was brought to mainstream attention. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, harassment particularly directed at the LW1-3 is part of the GG playbook and we can cover that easily in the lead as it is a major component of the notability and history of the controversy (you will remember what brought this to the front page NYT ?) - no rabbit holes there. That there are other parts of the GG playbook, such as attempting to invisiblize women, we dont need to cover in the lead, as they have not received significant coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Well considering that The Union says that only a minority are attacking the LW's we can't really call this the standard GG playbook, Misplaced Pages shouldn't be giving a voice to the minority in the lead as that would be undue. Avono (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we just use their names instead of this literally who crap? — Strongjam (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

So it's a BLP violation to spend too much time on the harassment and such, but we must make sure the harassment is in the lead to ensure that it's front and center and bring lots of attention to it? I know that there's a desire to make one side look really, really bad and the other really, really good in the way this article is being edited, but can we maybe aim for neutrality instead? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The only reason Gamergate is even notable is its harassment campaigns. There is not a single mainstream reliable source which doesn't discuss Gamergate in the context of vicious, misogynist, anonymous harassment campaigns against Quinn, Sarkeesian, Wu and others, because it's essentially the only thing of substance that Gamergate has done. So yes, there's going to be a significant focus on the harassment which Gamergate is responsible for. That is an inevitable consequence of their actions, and it is why the very word is poisonous at this point to anyone not ideologically committed to the movement. We reflect the world as it is, not how a movement's supporters might wish it to be. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you rephrase this in a neutral way? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not with Intel's $300M thing, it is more than harassment. GG is now notable for having the industry recognize there are internal problems with how they treat women and minorities as a result of GG. It's not what GG wanted, and the methods used are highly suspect. In getting past RECENTISM, their role in the overall situation is no longer a significant factor as what the GG controversy is, to the point that they need to called out in the lede and ignoring other similarly "important" facets (on both sides). The lead summarized the current situation with GG without knowing who exactly those people are. (It also begs the question of who was more important here: remember that others like Phil Fish, Jenn Frank, and Leigh Alexander, among others, got unfair treatment via social media; it is simply better to not play favorites in the lede.) --MASEM (t) 19:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a matter of playing favorites, it's a matter of noting who the primary targets were, as the reliable sources have done. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is playing favorites both on targets, and then omitting much of the rest of the history of GG (in both directions). There is nothing special gained for a reader who may be coming in fresh into this article w/o knowledge of Gamergate and its major participants (who are not household names), to know who these three are; you can understand the crux of gamergate - "ethics" vs harassment - without knowing that. Yes, we could put them in, but then we have to include a good summary of all the various core events of GG that go around that, and that was something that was agreed to remove some time ago (when the lead was 4 paragraphs long, it was trimmed to 2). --MASEM (t) 19:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Complete fucking nonsense. Of COURSE it is relevant to the summary of any subject who the major players are. That GG has decided to remain "identifiable" only anonymous trolls is their PR problem and we are not here to be their "white knights" to fend off their bad press. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not talking about fending off bad press, I'm talking about keeping the lede concise. We have previously agreed to a more condensed lead which did omit the names to avoid going into the detailed history. If we include the names we have to expand the lead to explain all the core history aspects of the story, which weighs down the lead, particularly considering more recent develops are looking well beyond those points (eg Intel's thing). --MASEM (t) 19:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The lead is still very precise while adding the single sentence "The harassment has prominently targeted game designers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu as well as Anita Sarkeesian who critiques video games from a feminist perspective. ". And No, we do not need to expand into every detail beyond that. We can control verbal diarrhea, that is what editors do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

But again, these are not household names. If they were people of celebrity-type status that were seriously involved (not like Felicia Day or Alec Baldwin's limited involvement but with the recognition of those names), then yes, that might warrant their names. But these are - outside of video games and even within it - nobodies to the average reader. Their role is unavoidable in discussing GG in detail, but they can be omitted from a broad brush stroke, as otherwise we are, to an average reader, throwing out three random names. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You do not have to be a household name to be a "major player". And for someone to read the lead and walk away with no indication that the major players are Sarkeesian Wu and Quinn would be to WOEFULLY misrepresent to them what the gamergate clusterfuck has involved. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That line of logic means we should be including the other major players attached to the GG situation, including Fish, Jenn Frank, Leigh Alexander, Milo, Alec Baldwin, etc. It's a loooong list, and the involvement gets more complex with each name added. Profession women in the vg industry were harassed which was both condemned by others and brought the situation to light to the rest of the world, that's core to the story and a major walking-away point and as it is now, must be in the lead, but the specifics of who, this far past the initial events, is not as critical for a concise lead statement - and that was the consensus when we did condense it down, to provide as short a definition of what GG is without going into any more specific to avoid a potentially POV lead either way. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh, no. Editorial control of verbal diarrhea. The major players that are all in 90% of the coverage are the LW1-3. The others are ALWAYS peripheral when in the few instances they are mentioned at all. If you are not clear about that, WP:COMPETENCE kicks in. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

But again, the GG situation can be 100% understood at a broad level without mentioning a single name. Remember that most of the sources are anti-GG and are trying to appeal to the popular opinion of readers so they are intentionally or not going to take a personal view of the matter and focus on those three to point out that there are real people that were harassed, compared with the faceless side of the proGG that it hard to muster any sympathy for due to their anonymonity. From a completely impartial POV and in the concern of keeping the lead as tight as possible, omitting the names does no harm to the reader's understand from a broad perspective. It is an editorial choice, yes, there is no policy that says the names must be omitted, but again I will point that the lead of the current draft was something agreed to on a month or so back, and so readding the names is going against that consensus. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

E=MC2 can be 100% understood without any mention of Einstein, but to not mention Einstein in the lead would be a travesty that would not happen in any encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The lead sentence of a front-page article in The New York Times: Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist cultural critic, has for months received death and rape threats from opponents of her recent work challenging the stereotypes of women in video games. Bomb threats for her public talks are now routine. One detractor created a game in which players can click their mouse to punch an image of her face. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a newspaper aimed to sell copies hence they are going to write empathically towards a common public opinion to sell more papers. We're a clinically neutral encyclopedia trying to provide neutral coverage of a topic and do not write in a manner to engage the reader's empathy. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Haha, no. We don't psychoanalyze the writing of one of the most respected newspapers in the world. "Neutral" coverage of Gamergate, as per WP:NPOV, means that we write about topics as they are reflected in reliable sources. It is trivial to demonstrate that reliable sources focus on the harassment of specific people. Other examples here, here, here, here, here, here and how many more would you like? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes we do. We are not a newspaper. We have to recognize opinion and empathic writing and separate statements from that in writing an encyclopedia. Otherwise that is non-neutral writing. NPOV does not say we reflect how other sources write their material at all - we don't take up the sympathetic viewpoint that most GG sources have taken for those harassed. We summarize those sources in a neutral, impartial tone as an encyclopedia, balancing the content appropriate to how the sources provide it but without supporting or opposing any point of view. --MASEM (t) 20:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

None of the stories I just cited are opinion columns — to the contrary, they are all hard news stories published by some of the most respected journalistic outlets on the planet — BBC, The Guardian, The New Yorker, The Washington Post and The New York Times. Reporting that specific people have been targeted for vicious and unrelenting harassment campaigns is not a "sympathetic viewpoint," it is simply the mainstream viewpoint about Gamergate and our article will reflect the mainstream viewpoint of reliable sources, as policy demands. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a sympathetic viewpoint. It introduces a victim first before explaining why she was targetted as a victim. That's a key feature of empathatic writing, putting the figure you want the reader to sympathize with front and center, even if the story is all factual. It happens all the time in newspapers (look at the coverage of the current Charlie Hepdo shootings for example from RSes). We on WP do not write that way and have to recognize that tainting coverage when it does happen. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No. I'm sorry, but this is not a "sympathetic viewpoint." It's just not. It is simply how news articles about people who have been victimized are written. That you disagree with how reliable sources frame an issue is interesting, but of no consequence to the encyclopedia. We write articles based on how reliable sources cover something, and reliable sources treat the people at the center of the attacks as what they are - human beings. Because unlike anything Gamergate has raised, that actually is part of journalism ethics: Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect. Journalists should: Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage - from the SPJ Code of Ethics. It is, after all, about ethics in journalism - reporters ethically reporting on people who have been victimized by anonymous Internet harassment campaigns. UI am truly sorry that reliable sources haven't covered Gamergate the way you want them to. That does not give you license to ignore what those sources say or their framing of the movement's real-world impact on real human beings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's very important that we recognize when sources try to create sympathy, because we cannot write in any type of sympathetic style, just as we cannot write in a judgmental style towards the proGG side. They are identified as victims, that's fine, we definitely say that. We use their quotes because of being victims their side is core to understanding. But we cannot write the article to create any more sympathy than that. We can express the attributed viewpoint that most sources give that these women did not deserve the harassment they got or the intensity of it, since that's a major viewpoint. But again, it is a viewpoint and opinion, not a stance that we can take in writing this article. We must be clinically neutral in our writing, which newspapers do not have to be to still be considered highly reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not "sympathy" to mention the names of the three most notable victims of Gamergate harassment in the lede of an article which is primarily about the movement's harassment of these three women and the resulting fallout of widespread public condemnation which, in turn, effectively discredited the entire Gamergate movement and resulted in its reduction to an impotent fringe — or, in other words, the Gamergate controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it can be taken that way, as by assigning names, you have now introduced real identifible people, who are otherwise unknown outside the situation and the VG field. Obviously in discussing the situation in detail, they cannot be omitted at all, but in a broad summary that the lede should be, it can be seen as personalizing the situation to implicitly create sympathy that the reader should feel. We can write a summary without their names and still get the point across that GG was a situation brought to light by harassment against women professionals in the industry (as you stated above), creating no attempts to sway the reader. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

they are real people. who were attacked viciously by anonymous trolls. that resulted in the coverage that made the controversy notable. end of story. thems just the facts. no "emotion". no "bias". just standard reporting. the only "emotion" is your facile attempt to shield the poor pooor misunderstood gamergate trolls. you will need to take your white knighting elsewhere. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"They are real people" - right there you have forced sympathy into the argument. As a real person, I appreciate that, but as a WP editor, that's a no-no. The only facet about them being real, identifiable people is making sure to uphold BLP claims, but otherwise that's it. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are so emotional and non objective that the inclusion of information about living people automatically skews your ability to edit appropriately. but please do not project such emotional wimpiness onto others. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we use names of people when people are encyclopedic. As per the reliable sources and WP:V, the only reason Gamergate is encyclopedic is because of the public attention drawn by its vicious harassment of, among others, Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu. All three now have well-sourced biographies on the encyclopedia. Their victimization by Gamergate supporters is indisputably encyclopedic and is widely if not unanimously viewed as the reason Gamergate became a major public controversy. That you disagree with this is of no consequence - we don't write articles that you agree with, we write articles based upon reliable sources, and the reliable sources repeatedly and routinely discuss the controversy in the context of its three primary victims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This is getting nowhere. Perhaps a third opinion is needed. — Strongjam (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree that they should be mentioned in the lede. The harassment of Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu make up a significant portion of the article and the coverage. We shouldn't bury the lede. — Strongjam (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Counterarguments are deeply unconvincing and basically the same old disruptive editors advocating non-policy. Artw (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• RE TRPoD's OP, why are we even concerned by "the GG LW strategy"? (whatever that is, I have no idea) We should not be affected by that, let's just continue without that in mind. I get where Masem is coming from, if we are really taking a very broad overview of the whole matter, then yeah, we have common themes such as ethics, misogyny, culture war, harassment, social media, but Masem is correct to say that the harassment of Quinn, Sarkeesian is just one tangent of the whole issue, with other tangents like Operation Baby Seal and GameJournoPros which are on a totally different tangent. I am definitely not convinced why Brianna Wu should be in the lead, I mean, the blog post on Quinn basically started GamerGate, and Sarkeesian had the university bomb scare, but Wu ... well she was harassed, but others were harassed as well, what makes her so noteworthy of being in the lede? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the harassment of Sarkeesin, Quinn and Wu IS the controversy - it is in no way "tangential". if you are confused about that primary fact, you probably need to consider whether you are up to editing -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask what source you are basing this off of? A very quick google news search of "gamergate controversy" doesn't seem to support this definition, at a glance. HalfHat 13:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay hold on, I seem to have misunderstood "tangential"; to clarify, the harassment is one part of the controversy, most likely the largest part of the whole controversy, but not the only part of the controversy. There are other parts of the controversy which are unrelated to Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu, including Operation Baby Seal and GameJournoPros. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No, those are not part of the "controversy" , they are merely background. The controversy is the vicious horrible harassment of women particularly LW1-3 which led to an exploration of the general culture war against women in video game culture. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest bringing in external voices here and getting it settled ASAP, these rambling discussions at glance look as unproductive as ever, plus this is quite a major detail of article direction. HalfHat 13:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Or people could just stop being tendentious making ludicrous attempts to remove the three most prominent people associated with subject from the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Grace Lynn swatting again

The Grace Lynn swatting discussion (archived here) petered out before we decided what to do about the story. I suppose it's been a busy week, but here we now have plenty of coverage of a Gamergate-related event by major reliable sources. It would seem odd not to cover it in view of that. --TS 03:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

She appears to be the only source connecting an address she no longer lives at to anonymous posting on a forum and concludes it's gamergate supporters in real time (what are the odds?). She's flip-flopped on GamerGate because of the inherent conflict of modern feminism and transgender issues. This is perhaps the single most unreliable incident reported. It discredits the other instances through association, though, which is a strong argument to ignore it. --DHeyward (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Basically every reliable source acknowledges the person responsible claimed to have nothing to do with GamerGate with at least one explicitly describing it as the likely work of an unaffiliated troll. We shouldn't include everything that happens to a person connected with GamerGate in this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• This incident is already on the swatting article. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless we find some sources that talk about how things like the swatting are blamed on Gamergate when they aren't related, I'm not really seeing the point of putting it in given the lack of actual connection. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

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