Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Why is misogny mentioned first?

Can we phrase the first line in the article to mention both misogny and journalism ethics then just misogny and harrasment?--Torga (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources focus on the misogyny and harassment primarily, and whatever message there may be about ethics as a footnote. Unfortunately we at Wikipedia cannot write about things that have not already been written or give undue weight to a minority opinion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Misogyny is just an excuse that the accused are pulling out in order to try to deflect on their own faults. If the issue was sexism, The Fine Young Capitalists would have never been funded fully. Just as well, if misogyny is the issue, then why isn't #notyourshield mentioned? Honestyislebestpolicy (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, it is the first thing nearly all external RSes relate as an issue here. It is the issue of why the larger press is talking about it. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If anyone bothered to look at this twitter tag, you'd see that there are lots of females outraged by the lack of journalistic integrity. Which means there is no trace of sexism. But that is not a good source to base a wiki article about a twitter tag, right? It's best to quote the journalists without journalistic integrity that the scandal is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capilleary (talk • contribs) 12:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

If this movement were primarily about journalistic integrity, this article wouldn't exist because there would not be enough sources to support it. It's the harassment and the misogyny that's getting the coverage, because that's what's notable about the movement. And if you think that the mainstream publications are going to compromise their integrity by covering up a scandal about video games, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Full disclosure, I am part of the GamerGate movement. I will not personally modify the article, even if I could, because I realize my bias could shape the narrative in an unfair way. I would like to get my opinion in. The issue if you follow twitter, the primary source for the movement is the "unethical" press are deflecting from being called out on their ethics. They write the narrative because they own the voice of the media. I strongly feel the article is being used to bias peoples opinions against the movement in favour of the journalist, that are being called out because of their ethics. As others have stated it's unfair to use certain media sources, or sources that cite those sources, because the people the movemnet is against is the mouth piece. Members of the movement can't get coverage of reputable news sites BECAUSE they oppose the people writing for those sites who are portraying us as a bunch of cis-white-male misogynist. It would be horribly politically incorrect for any reputable source to touch that with a 10 ft pole. From what I've seen when someone does write something in favour of GamerGate it's dismissed as not a reputable source. Honestly this shouldn't be being covered by Wikipedia at all while the event is still happening. I'm of the concern this article is being directly used to influence public opinion so media outlets and social justice warriors can sweep the movement under the rug. I have a lot of respect for Wikipedia and all the editors who do a great job here. Please don't let Wikipedia be used as a social engineering tool to persuade public opinion with bias articles... Now where's the button to sign this thing... 71.7.173.24 (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Last thing I'm going to add today. I think before editing anything else in this article you should have a look at this video 12 minutes, explaining the GamerGate side, I'm sure you'll see how this article comes off as bias against the movement and how a lot of the facts and events appear to be being left out. Won't bother you again, thanks.71.7.173.24 (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

So we do not write about ethics and corruption in the press because the press have not written about it? --Torga (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It's in there (see Analysis section), but it's not the first issue that's associated with this. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

So the press gets accused of something, associates it with a completely unrelated issue, Wikipedia uses it as a primary source, and then Wikipedia itself becomes a source of falsified history. This is exactly why Wikipedia absolutely shouldn't cover ongoing issues, as it is now has the capability to alter the history itself.  Grue  18:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Published news articles are secondary sources, and reliable media outlets can still be considered reliable even when they're reporting on a manufactured controversy involving crackpot conspiracy theories about the media. Diaries, chat logs and personal blogs are primary sources: we use those sparingly if at all. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"and personal blogs are primary sources: we use those sparingly if at all." ... Yet you use Kotaku? Honestyislebestpolicy (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Did anyone bother to check if "Gamergate" as such even existed at the time Zoe Quinn's harassment happened? Was Adam Baldwin who created the hashtag ever involved in Zoe Quinn's harassment? Why is all the Zoe Quinn's stuff, that happened before #gamergate was established, in this article and not in hers? These are some basic questions that come to my mind when reading this article. It's like if I was reading an article about hamburgers with a long lead-in about civil war in Somalia.  Grue  18:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Adam Baldwin used the hashtag while linking to two defamatory youtube videos detailing the ridiculous allegations against Quinn that were being used to justify her harrassment. GamerGate is and always was fundamentally about punishing a woman. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

So, is it the stated goal of the movement, or something derived from (possibly biased) secondary sources? It seems that this is something that could be moved into "Criticism" section, while actual stated goals of the movement, sourced from notable supporters of the movement should be used to lead into the article. This way seems less biased to me and more in line with how other controversial topics are usually treated.  Grue  18:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no central voice for the GG movement (ignoring Quinn's claims this was organzied on 4chan), and as such no one can state what the goals of the movement are. All reliable sources are trying to figure out the shape of that, but without a single, reliable voice, GG is going to be treated by the media about how it is perceived, not by how it wants to be perceived. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If the movement's goals aren't what the media is framing them as... what are they, actually? What is the desired outcome of the movement? We've yet to see anyone actually articulate anything beyond "we don't like people writing cultural critiques of video games." If that's the desired outcome, well, yeah, it's not like the movement can somehow stop people from writing cultural critiques of video games. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You know, this has been answered many times, but every time people ignore it. But I will say, this article from Forbes gets it right. "There were so many points raised about so many issues, it was hard to keep track of a list of actual demands." So many things were brought up. It started with journalism ethics, pushed into the demonetization of people by the cliques of writers (I.e. TFYC), the constant spewing of vitrol that is mirrored in this article currently ("Oh, you disagree with a woman and have valid criticism? MISOGYNY! (which, im not saying harassment should be overlooked here, because dicks were dicks, but it wasnt the movement)). There is also the point that people in the pro gamergate wanted the so called 'SJW' (which, BTW, is the term for extremist activist, that is why #notyourshield was created, to take their platform out from under them. This techcrunch article, who earlier, BTW even pushed a 'Misogyny' related article, said "Gamergate may want mechanical purity free of the sullying of media, but personally I feel that that is the wrong answer.". So they KNOW what it is about. Hell, some developers are coming out and trying to support GG, like the CEO of stardock. Hell, the freaking policy changes, which were praised highly from Kotaku and the Escapist, only get one sentence at the bottom of the article. Two major achievements from the movement are glossed over to push a POV. Cmon. Anyway, probably won't reply again for a while, trying to stay away from most stuff right now cus of anxiety. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Misogyny was not part of the movement but it became entrenched within it due to how things started and there's no way you can change that at this point.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The hatred of women never became entrenched in GamerGate. You seem to be pushing for your point constantly though, so there isn't much to say to you, since were going to go back to tired arguments that people have gone through before. What caused Kotaku and The Escapist to change their policies? The hatred of women? The only reason it seems 'entrenched' is because of the POV pushing by games outlets, and even writers (such as the time article who wrote on gamasutra and insulted the gamer base near the end with plenty of insults, and the New Yorker guy who funded someone in the deep of Gamergate, then immediatly hid his Patreon as soon as the article was published) who push it. It seems though that the actual story is coming out now, even people trying to slander gamergate have admitted it (i.e. look at the techcrunch article). So no, it isn't, but we can't prove it until more moderate sources publish something about it. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Until those moderate sources publish something about it you are wasting your time here trying to frame the article about events that you think might happen. Come back back when you have actual usable sources and not merely your own opinion.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Except that we're not talking about "disagreeing with a woman," we're talking about an extensive campaigns of vitriol, organized harassment and torrents of abuse. You can't just brush all that off with the throwaway phrase "it wasn't the movement" and pretend like that's a satisfactory answer, because it's not.

If it's not part of the movement, where are those within the movement vocally denouncing it, calling it out and rejecting it? If it's not part of the movement, why was the 4chan IRC channel called "burgersandfries" in a 3rd-grade-level reference to a woman's sex life? If it's not part of the movement, how did Anita Sarkeesian become a target of the argument when she has nothing to do with games journalism? If it's not part of the movement, for God's sake, why was the movement focused on the personal life of an obscure indie developer rather than the squillions of dollars spent to advertise AAA games by EA, Activision, Blizzard and the other big-name developers? Which is a more significant threat to the independence and ethics of games journalism? I'll give you a hint: it doesn't have anything to do with who a woman sleeps with.

Again, as has been discussed in reliable sources, there were most undoubtedly a lot of people with genuine concerns wrapped into it. But the hashtag was taken over by "an army of trolls spewing bile, often at women," and there was apparently no one with either the power or the courage to try and take back control of it and redirect the conversation in a meaningful and productive direction. So here we are, with unintended consequences aplenty. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok then North, since it seems were at a peaceful discussion now (as in hopefully no anxiety), I honestly have a question. Why is the introduction not framed that way then? I am not the best writer, but something such as, "Gamergate started as a movement against current journalism ethics and POV pushing in the current gaming media, but was co-opted by "an army of trolls spewing bile, often at women." I don't think that is 100% correct, but the actual movement of what Gamegate was should be important, even if it was co-opted. Instead, the introduction only makes it seem that gamergate is a movement for harassment(which as you said, it had genuine concerns from it), and then writing off the positives. Hell, again, even the Escapist and Kotaku policy changes only get one sentence, even though those were major breakthroughs in the movement. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Because the reliable sources focus on the fact that sexism and misogyny took center stage from the very beginning, right down to someone's incredibly-questionable decision to frame the entire movement around tabloid-level allegations about an obscure indie developer's personal life.

The best summation of this mess comes from an actual games developer, who we partially quote through Vox:

Right now, publishers are buying reviews. Right now, publishers are giving large amounts of money and other perks to journalists in order to skew the public perception and influence, both positively and negatively, game sales. Right now, Metacritic is being used to determine whether or not designers get to keep their jobs. Right now, AAA executives are cutting women and LGBT characters out of games in development, because of "the core demographic". These are huge problems. These are problems we want to talk about. These are problems we want to fix. We aren't going to smile and nod while hundreds of people dogpile a couple of people's sex lives. We're not going to cheer you on while muckrakers are hounding people for answers to stupid, invasive questions they shouldn't be asking. We want a better industry. But we feel that what we're seeing, or at least the bulk of what we're seeing is making a worse industry. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

BY THE WAY, that was a self posted blog right? We can't trust their words. But we can trust when developers and a CEO come out in support of gamergate, http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Stardock-CEO-League-Legends-Devs-Others-Support-GamerGate-67327.html/ right? PseudoSomething (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't use it as a source for the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Then we can call them on their fact checking right? (Of course your going to say they are right, don't answer that). Why did Kotaku and the Escapist change their policies? Why did TFYC get fully funded to HELP WOMEN DEVELOPERS. Why did '#literatelywho' happen? (that hashtag was trying to show everyone outside the controversy that it wasn't about Zoe, since she did everything she could to make it about her). Why did certain game bloggers release about 12? articles that 'gamers are dead' in 48 hours? Why was there major censorship about the issue from Reddit and 4chan and most blog sites about the issue? (which I am amazingly surprised here, since that is the major issue that caused this, being censored from the start). Why did wikileaks just tweet in support of the movement? What was #notyourshield? None of these questions are getting answered in this article, and they all point to a major push from Gamergate to change the way game bloggers write. These are all things that happened BECAUSE of gamergate, yet aren't given any significance because of POV pushing in this article. If it is about Zoe, since you are pushing that, why aren't the issues about indiecade brought up? Why is the issue of her DMCA'ing a video criticizing her get flagged BY HER, and then reinstated BY YOUTUBE because it was a bad flag? Why is the demonetization of TFYC not being brought up, since that is the reason they got funded? To add to that, that she immediatly created a Game jam that all proceeds went to her PayPal. You don't get to have it one way if you aren't POV pushing. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please present reliable sources to support these statements, and we can start discussing potential additions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It began because a jilted ex-lover of one woman who made a video game that no one liked to begin with accused her of sleeping around with someone who wrote for a video game website that didn't even review her game to begin with, and then had thousands of harassing messages come her way simply because a vocal group of gamers are petulant self-entitled fucks who think anything that doesn't go their way deserves death threats, regardless if it's a man or woman. Everything that caused the uproar was falsified and entrenched in a group that doesn't give a shit about the changes but felt threatened, but that did not stop companies from ringing the death knell for the gamer identity or addressing the new indie dev scene in their conflict of interest policies.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"jilted ex-lover of one woman" So someone who has proof that his girlfriend cheated on him? That didn't accuse her of anything but brought situation to light? How the issue with her sleeping with someone on the panel of Indiecade who gave an award to her? Sorry, I know exactly where the conversation will end up talking to you, Ryulong. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You literally couldn't be doing a better job making my point if I tried. How many ways are you going to try to justify the movement's focus on tawdry allegations about the sex life of an obscure indie developer? If this is about journalism ethics, what does the fact that someone "cheated on" someone else have to do with anything? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

[reacted] 2601:E:9F80:D74:1440:9475:2F6B:7F48 (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you have a reliable source to support this wild accusation, right? Otherwise it'll have to be redacted per BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Redaction taken care of. And we have no proof of any of the things that Gjoni said are accurate. It's all hearsay that was intentionally posted to bring her down out of revenge and y'all are eating it up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We're not framing the issue using the sources that have been called into question on the matter (eg, we're not using gaming sites for the main points, we're using national newspapers and magazines). And if those sources are framing it that way, we sorta have to follow. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

And some of the editors wont even let both the issue be mentioned in the first sentence. So i think its best to put both issues on the first line. --Torga (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We cover it as the reliable sources cover it. you would need to show that reliable sources are generally covering them equally and not focusing on the harassment and covering the reporter-developer issue as a footnote. Given that everything i have seen published to date is "harassment harassment harassment harassment harassment harassment journalistic ethics harassment harassment" you will need to be coming up with A LOT of sources that focus solely on the journalistic ethics to have a basis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I personally agree with Torga on this issue. The larger publications have worded it the way they have because the corrupt gaming publications reporting on it first focused on the harassment of key members guilty of collusion and refused to acknowledge their own guilt. In the mainstream media's mind the harassment is the main focus. To people who actually care about what's going on here, the collusion and corruption in the games journalism industry is the real issue, so they both are deserving of a first line focus. It's a bit difficult to cite sources when all the usual sources you'd cite are controlling the information that gets covered. Since Wikipedia's sources don't readily accept blogs, etc. even readily available evidence can't be cited. --JoeyEbidoku (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased. The sources it uses are all accused of being corrupt. The information in this article is leading many people on the internet to assume wrong things about GamerGate and to keep spreading lies about what is actually happening. Either fix the bias, or delete this article. Inuyasha8888 (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The focus of the article will remain as-is, as those accusing reliable sources of "corruption" are themselves non-reliable. This article is about misogyny in the gaming industry, and the fallout of a person being attacked and harassed by others on the internet. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Since there are no reliable sources that says those sources are not reliable, they are not until provided evidence. As such, those sources that say they are corrupted are thus not reliable anymore then sources trying to instill or imply that Iraq had weapon capabilities.

As such, since the sources are unreliable due to corruption. This article is about anti-male misandry in the gaming industry, that includes gaming "journalists" and the fallout of people being attacked and harassed by others on the internet. 109.225.100.76 (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

109.225.100.76, sources don't need confirmation from RSes to not be reliable; if this were the case, nearly every YouTube channel, forum account, or GoDaddy site on the Internet would be presumed reliable - and we'd be able to create our own RSes to confirm our other RSes as reliable. I think Zoe Quinn is clearly and unequivocally the New York Yankees of positive reviews and Anita Sarkeesian is contributing to the discussion no more helpfully than the average <10-post Stormfront user does to serious discussion of politics and history, but we can only cover what reliable sources do for a controversial issue like this, even if in reality journalism integrity is much more of important and widely discussed issue here. Remember, per WP:V, Wikipedia goes by verifiability, not truth. The fact that this isn't enough for a real person to actually get an understanding of the situation is one reason you shouldn't use Wikipedia as your only news source. Tezero (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Right. That's why I think the entire article should be deleted, to be honest. Because otherwise this page is just more misinformation contributing to the problem. If the actual topic the subject is covering (games journalism corruption) can't be verified and covered in full, in my opinion, the topic in general shouldn't be covered at all and made to seem as if it's actually about something completely different. Because right now the only "verifiable" sources are all misinformed or corrupt, so they're focusing on what is really only a small part of the issue at hand here. I'd say most of us would agree sexism in the culture is an issue, but that's not what this scandal is actual about at all. That's a spin from corrupt media sources to detract from the actual argument at hand that happened to get picked up by outside media sources as if it was an actual story. There's proof to back that up as well, so I don't know why that isn't noted anywhere... So I feel that no information is better than misinformation. Or at the very least we should include the few verifiable sources that ARE available instead of simply leaving them out and acting as if they don't exist (I can post the actual links if need be, but they're the articles about the Gaming Journalism Emails by Milo Yiannopoulos on Breitbart.com). But I guess I do appreciate the fact the first-line was slightly changed. JoeyEbidoku (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Editing the article to conform with Wikipedia's Neutral POV and Encyclopedic style

For some reason, there are constant reverts who just try to make this article fall within wikipedia policy. I don't even mean content, but tone. For example, the unencyclopedic use of words or scare quotes like '"tirade"' is just outrageous. The positive and (unsourced) assertion of there being a sexist conspiracy is outrageous for an encyclopedia. The use of gaming media outlets that are themselves under scrutiny for ethical violations as authoritative sources is outrageous for an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is not a soap box. A lot of people want it to be favorable to some point of view or cause, and the article currently reflects that. 38.104.236.242 (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion

its not "scare quotes" its "actual quotes" - we are directly quoting the source and acknowledge it as such. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:SUBJECTIVE judgments don't become objective simply because RSes report them. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 05:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

one as a "tirade", one as "spiteful blog post, one as the invasion of a developer's privacy by her ex-boyfriend or maybe " a dirty-laundry double load of drama" or a " spiteful attack " . Please choose which one you prefer as representative of the general opinion of the tirade. my !vote is " a dirty-laundry double load of drama" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It should not be used in the introduction to the article. The article should also not start off with political commentary on the movement. Please read NPOV policy Pretendus (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

au contraire. did you actually read WP:NPOV in particular the WP:UNDUE section? we present content as the reliable sources present it. they present it as a "tirade". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

So the reliable sources are the the ones that got their information from the sources that are being questioned by the movement discussed in this article? Has ANY such articles originate from someone without a vested interest? No. All the articles cite the same arguments that have been used by the conspired media in the 2 days of "Gamers are dead" hate speech. Which is why this article is not based on reliable sources, and is extremely biased. Capilleary (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

why not edit the first line to read "ALLEGED long-standing issues..."? It's still an ongoing matter, and I'd like a source pointing that there's actual sexism and misogyny in video games, rather than an outright assertion from a Wikipedia article. The word "alleged" would make a lot of the article become more neutral in the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.252.205 (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Because that would imply that there was no basis for it but the claims of some individuals. That's not the case: our sources don't say 'some people think there is misogyny in gaming culture,' they say 'there is misogyny in gaming culture. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

That's what's known as a subjective judgment. Please familiarize yourself with WP:SUBJECTIVE 71.178.64.248 (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

No, 'misogynistic' actually has an objective meaning and can be applied objectively, and we are required to report what the sources report. When major publications are calling this 'misogynistic,' we have to as well. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

But the sources aren't unbiased scientific papers or show clearly proven cases of misogyny. They are news articles, coming from news outlets, that are reporting on what goes on. And a journalist isn't always unbiased about something like this. I repeat, this is an ongoing matter. It's like saying: Person A is currently in trial because they murdered Person B. But the trial hasn't ended yet, so Person A is not necessarily the one who killed Person B. A more correct way to phrase the above statement then would be, "Person A is currently in trial because they allegedly murdered Person B". And that's exactly how the case will be worded in court as well. The word "alleged" doesn't imply that an argument is wrong. It implies that someone suggested there's something wrong. Which is exactly the state of the argument at this point in time. >— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.252.205 (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2014

No, we generally use "alleged" in cases where formal allegations are laid before some sort of governing body which will rule on those allegations; particularly in relation to criminal charges or specifications of wrongdoing. There is no "neutral" governing body or court which determines what is and is not misogynistic. It has an objective dictionary definition, but the application of that word to any given thing is debatable and undoubtedly people disagree on many of its applications.

"particularly in relation to criminal charges or specifications of wrongdoing" well guess what. The allegations are based on claims that there were threats directed at women from gamers just because they were women. It was taken as literal proof. The police is investigating it. It might have been a false flag <redact per BLP>, because the contact information was false, among other proof from multiple independent sources), or it might have not been gamers at all, or no threats at all. The neutral party - the authorities, have to determine whether that is true or not. Right now it stands as an accusation against an entire group of people, along with pretty much baseless insults. Which is why this can't be accepted at this point into this article. Capilleary (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do not insert claims about living people that are unsupported or poorly supported; a link to KnowYourMeme does not constitute acceptable support. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not prohibited from adopting statements of fact when those statements represent the dominant point of view among reliable sources. It is indisputable that the predominant POV among reliable sources is that there is misogyny in the gaming community and that this controversy involves misogyny in the gaming community. Therefore, Wikipedia is required to give that POV prominence in its articles. We are prohibited from representing minority or fringe points of view as if they are equivalent to, or as credible as, majority points of view. Wikipedia's policy of neutrality does not mean our articles must be voiceless and judgment-free. We are not required to adopt some sort of impossible neutrality in which articles say nothing and draw no conclusions. Rather, we must draw the same conclusions as those drawn by reliable sources.

There are a great many things that cannot be determined by "unbiased scientific papers," assuming scientific papers are even unbiased, which is a fact not in evidence; all things human are, in some way, biased. Perfect objectivity is a myth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that in this case misogyny in video games can be determined by scientific papers, but herein lies the rump. The paragraph above you is unsigned, so I don't know if it comes from you or not, but in any case: most of the sources provided have been shown to not be unbiased on this issue. Ergo, if the article expresses the so-called "dominant POV", which is mainly provided from these sources, it does not express an unbiased view. It becomes a stand from which these views are being preached even further, and especially to people who have no idea about the issue and just arrive here to be informed on the assumption that a Wikipedia article is more or less unbiased and neutral. The article's first paragraph's wording makes it so that when a neutral uninformed audience reads it they will most likely take it in as fact. This is a violation of Wikipedia's rules that articles should not become soapboxes for preachers. Furthermore, the "dominant POV" is not dominant at all. If it was, there would be no "Gamergate". For example, most videos, tweets, blogs etc that support that there is misogyny in video games meets with at best 50-60% approval rating (check ratings of Anita's videos or other affiliated videos on youtube for evidence of this). Hence, this is a matter that has two views, and all I see on the first paragraph is that preference is given to one view over the other. (EDIT: Furthermore, the aim of the article isn't to determine if there is indeed misogyny or not in video games, the aim of the article is to inform the reader on what exactly is the issue commonly called GamerGate. As such, it should not state the arguments of people who argue that there is misogyny as a matter of fact, no more than it should not state the arguments of the other side as facts. It should emphasize that these are merely arguments) >— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.252.205 (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2014

Our articles are based on the mainstream viewpoint in reliable sources. See WP:V and WP:RS. YouTube ratings are not a reliable source for any sort of approval.

I recognize that you and others believe all the mainstream reliable sources are biased. You are welcome to hold that belief. But you fundamentally misunderstand what we are if you expect us to ignore the mainstream reliable sources because of your belief. Our articles are required to be based on what mainstream reliable sources say about an issue. Wikipedia is not an alternative media outlet to disseminate or promote viewpoints that are not accepted by mainstream reliable sources. If the mainstream reliable sources are biased, then the Wikipedia article will have a similar bias.

The due weight section of the NPOV policy: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.

It is trivial to demonstrate that the predominant viewpoint in published, reliable sources is that GamerGate has demonstrated misogynistic harassment in the gamer community. Therefore, that is what Wikipedia's focus will be, until and unless that changes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This is more of the same mistakes of what is and is not considered neutral for this page. There is a dominant point of view that misogyny and sexist harassment is the crux of what "GamerGate" entails. Then there's the minority point of view that GamerGate is only ever about investigating cronyism in the video game press. Both of these points are addressed on the article. You and every other editor who has been beating this "misogyny isn't the focus" horse with a stick need to realize that there is neer going to be a point that this is not going to be the case, particularly when the events are still fresh in everyone's mind.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Neither source presents any proof that shows real members of GamerGate engaged in any behavior that can be considered misogynist. Which is why the sources are not reliable, or relevant, for this article. Capilleary (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It's important to identify "who" if you are going to use broad brush characterizations. Who is misogynistic? We incorrectly identify the gaming community. Zoe's ex is lumped in the article as well though there is no evidence of that or sources that state his acts were misogynistic or that he is a misogynist. Indeed the articles about cite a "mob of angry trolls" which excludes most of the gamer community. Please read up or watch what a "straw feminist trope" is and that is how our article reads and appears to interpret sources from that perspective. All gamers are not misogynist. The gamer community as a whole, which includes Zoe though not her ex, is not misogynist. It's a strong word and using it broadly sounds like it is made by tropes about tropes. Reread the sources and there are subtle distinctions. Lost on the mob here, though. --DHeyward (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"Who is misogynistic? We incorrectly identify the gaming community." Until you provide reliable sources that say otherwise, this is the statement of the press that the misogyny is from the gaming community. They are not saying all gamers are, but the use of harassment and the like enforces that there is a portion of that community that still are misogynic. We cannot change that until the media change their tune. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the sources identify particle sub-groups of the gamer community expressly on specific boards and even specific areas of those boards. The article has lost that distinction. This is the same type of distinction that would not be lost if the article was balanced. In writing about the peaceful Ferguson protests for example, the "African-American community" would not be used to describe the looters and rioters regardless of whether they participated in the peaceful marches, regardless of whether they belonged to the African-American community. The WP article extrapolates it to the entire community. It is complete WP:SYNTH to not restrict it to who the actual misogynist are and we shouldn't say it at all if we can't. It's a very small subset of the gaming community. We would not lose that aspect if we were discussing, say crime in African-American neighborhoods. --DHeyward (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph mentioning TFYC reads very biased and is inserting/missing a couple pieces of information. There is nothing in any of the articles that states that TFYC is a supporter of #GamerGate, and saying so puts them on a side when they only had a conflict with Quinn. (Redacted) Also saying that 4chan did something "allegedely out of spite" should be cited if it's going to be in there.

There is no mention (from the same articles cited) that Quinn tried to bribe TFYC with a mention at PAX, which is an important piece of information to keep an even article. I think that there should also be a quote from TFYC since quotes tend to add a little bit stronger opinion rather than just stating the fact here, and there is one against /v/. I suggest this: The group also states "One business partner, not wanting the rest of his work to be referred to as transphobic, left the project", costing them US$10,000. This comes from the same article referenced and is less confusing than before. IAmJohnny5 (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

They've inherently become entrenched in GamerGate whether they like it or not, and because one side is supporting them it puts them on that side. The description of their rules is found in their interview. The PAX mention is a BLP issue. Nothing else is confusing, really.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because they are entrenched in the situation does not mean they have chosen a side. Leaving it how it is written shows that Wikipedia has chosen their side and that could be damaging to their company. Support is not always a two way street, GamerGate supporting someone does not mean they support GamerGate. (Redacted) I read that sentence wrong. IAmJohnny5 (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

While you are right that /v/ has only backed them, and there is nothing in the article about the rules being confusing. There are sources that say that Quinn disagreed with their rules. A sponsor backed out over the allegations over their rules. They felt the need to clarify the rules in an interview and that's being cited. None of your other concerns are of note.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Intro needs to be revised

@Masem:: The present intro is not compliant with WP:NPOV and does not follow the standard article format which we use for controversial issues, and violates WP:IMPARTIAL, among other things. It was never agreed on by consensus and it needs to be revised to be more in line with the introductions of other controversies. The goal of my change was to make the introduction much more neutral and to follow the general guidelines for such articles, which is that the introduction starts out by describing what advocates of whatever issue claim. Look at various conspiracy theory articles for reference, such as 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, Reptilians, ect.

My suggestion is to bring it into line as follows:

#GamerGate is an ongoing controversy in video game culture about journalistic ethics in the online gaming press, particularly long-standing issues of conflicts of interest between video game journalists and developers, disrespect for the core gaming audience by gaming journalists and games developers, a reaction to a perceived change in the "gamer" identity, and the coverage of social issues in gaming media. The controversy became high-profile on social media in August 2014 after the removal of posts about the controversy on Reddit, 4Chan, and other online message boards resulted in the Streisand Effect. A number of people involved in the controversy were harassed; several journalists and game developers received death threats from angry gamers and advocates for social justice, and personal information about a number of people involved in the controversy was leaked online. Targets of the campaign and some members of the press and video game developers have described the campaign as misogynistic in nature, an attempt to drive women and social justice advocates out of the gaming industry, while supporters of the campaign say their goal is to uncover corruption in the media and that claims of misogyny are a straw man attempt to deflect criticism.

This way, we start out with:

1. What the controversy is about, according to its advocates.
2. When it started.
3. What happened. (We might also want to include that several websites reviewed/changed their ethics policies as well, as that was a fairly major development which is immediately relevant, though we might also want to put that last as it occurred last chronologically).
4. What the detractors of the controversy have to say about it.

It gives the reader a quick and dirty impression of what it is about, when it happened, some of the major events, and why it is controversial. Titanium Dragon (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

References

I fully agree with this. We have a large amount of sources that say that this movement was about journalism ethics, which is also what the movement(The "Common Voice") defines its goals as. These sources should be more than enough to write what gamergate is about by its advocates, but still talk heavily about the major criticisms. PseudoSomething (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

WhatCulture is not a reliable source and thus cannot be used here, which undermine most of your statements in the rewritten lead. The lead does not follow the rest of the article. Additionally, because we're still in the midst of the event, it is better to keep the lead short to the core details until we can say the matter is closed and write a better more encompassing lead as to avoid incorrect allegations, etc. in that. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Forbes talks about the same things, which would not undermine the statements. Current, since we are in the midst of it, shouldn't it be short and sweet then, instead of pushing only one side of the sources? Currently, there are incorrect allegations against gamergate, which have sources to back it up. All of these sources can be provided. PseudoSomething (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

1. The present introduction is three sentences long. Mine was four. I'm not worried about breaking the bank here; it is still a pretty short paragraph either way.
2. The present introduction does not follow the standard formatting for such things, as I noted above; we never start out by describing a controversial topic with criticism by its detractors, even when it is completely ridiculous (see also: 9/11 conspiracy theories, reptilians, ect.).
3. The present introduction violates WP:IMPARTIAL, and gives WP:UNDUE notice to Zoe Quinn; a number of people were harassed (her, Sarkeesian, Bain, the writer for Breitbart, ect.).
4. Why isn't WhatCulture a reliable source?
5. Forbes is used to cite the Streisand Effect. Indeed, Forbes specifically uses the term.
6. There are a number of other sources who can be cited on this as well: Digitimes tells the same story, so does Forbes. The death threats thing is attested in numerous sources.
7. The intro presently cites Time magazine, which is not a reliable source in this case because the writer of the article, Leigh Alexander, works for Kotaku, who is a major target of the controversy, and has a conflict of interest, especially given that she herself works in both PR for games and gaming journalism; this dual role is precisely what the controversy is about, and she advocates for why what she is doing is okay. I'm not saying that her article is worthless, but we shouldn't use it per WP:RS, at least not as a source for factual statements about the controversy. Titanium Dragon (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

WhatCulture is a clickbait site and does not show a history of fact checking and editorial control, so it's not usable. At point in the future when we know how everything will settle we can expand the lead, but this expansion includes things not even mentioned in the articles proper. There's also claims that I can't find in the sources, eg the straw man argument (Forbes mentions the reverse, that media think the corruption issue is the cover for misogyny in the gamer community, but not the other way). It's not a violation of impartial given what we can use for sourcing. Quinn's name is important because it was the harassment toward her that initiated the events. And while Leigh works for the gaming industry, Time would have editorial control and fact checking before it would publish such a piece so it is not wrong to use it, though I would not see a problem with removing it from the lead as long as all other issues are cited. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Masem, TD brought up a big point. "The present introduction does not follow the standard formatting for such things, as I noted above; we never start out by describing a controversial topic with criticism by its detractors, even when it is completely ridiculous (see also: 9/11 conspiracy theories, reptilians, ect.)." This article currently puts detractor arguments first. PseudoSomething (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

How many fucking times are we going to have the "this article is not neutral" argument come up just because the pro-GamerGate editors here are upset that the aspect of ethics is not being acknowledged as a primary factor? It's just the same arguments rehashed every 12 hours. It's clear that neither PseudoSomething nor Titanium Dragon can be expected to contribute to this article in a constructive and neutral manner.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to calm down. That had nothing to do with neutrality. If we want to talk about what you are saying, you are trying to silence anyone making any contributions that you don't like, even telling me to "Shut up". Calm down, step back. PseudoSomething (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

When we are months out from this event, and there's no more GG articles being published, then we can have a lead like the other articles pointed to. But GG is still a mostly shapeless blob and it is unnecessary to have a detailed lead until we can identify the shape better. There is no deadline. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

So why don't we make the lead like all the articles that are being pointed to? Why do you have to disregard WP policies, since this article doesn't seem to be going anywhere, when this article is still up? We have details of the movement we can make sense of, but currently, it doesn't seem to be up to WP standards by starting with detractors of the issues. PseudoSomething (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

We have yet to fully define what GG is, so trying to write a detailed lead is pointless at this time. The suggested lead provided skews too many issues that at this time we don't know if they are the major facets of GG or not. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Fully define? No, but we have enough sources to cite the Journalism Ethics and Corruption are major issues to the movement, which would make the lead line up with WP standard writing. This makes it not pointless, since currently, the article starts with detractors, so it does not. So we have information about the GG movement, but it stills starts with detractors... PseudoSomething (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

We have enough sources to know that journalism ethics is an issue (so as such, it is defined in the lead) but what is the ultimate goal of proGG in respect to this? "We want more ethical journalism" is an aim but not a specific goal. As such, we can't write any more details on this in the lead because we have no idea what is wanted or what the core problems are. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Well.. an aim still defines what GG is aiming for. Start with that, since right now it starts with detractors. Such as, "Gamergate is a movement that aims for high Journalistic ethics in the gaming industry". That would be more than enough to define what Gamergate is and line up with standard WP policy. PseudoSomething (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

No, there's no evidence that GG is solely about that, that's the problem. It's part of what GG wants certainly, but it is not clear that it is only issue at play. That is belying what the sources call GG. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no evidence that it is 'Solely' about it, as there is no evidence that it is 'Solely' about the hatred of women, and thats the problem. Currently, the stable facts we know about GG (Wanting higher Journalism Ethics in the Gaming Industry), are not being introduced first, which is against WP policy. We can use the facts we know (We have a ton of sources that talk about wanting higher ethics, even ones that criticize that idea) to write the intro to be up to plicy. PseudoSomething (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: All sites are clickbait sites; just look at the titles of these articles. :P

re: Time: Again, we try to avoid sourcing things to folks who have a conflict of interest, regardless of editorial controls. We have tons of other sources on the matter.

re: What Culture: I'll note that the Washington Post itself made note of what What Culture had to say, which would imply that the Washington Post thinks that what What Culture has to say is interesting and important:

• In a post on the entertainment Web site WhatCulture, Jordan Ephrain argued games journalists are uncritically promoting social issues games such as “Depression Quest” without considering whether they really qualify as video games — and then dismissing any criticism of those same games as “trolling.”

This suggests to me that they considered their criticism important. Also, the Washington Post makes the same note of claims of deflection by gamers:

• But many gamers saw this as an effort by the media to deflect criticism of the increasingly leftist orientation of indie games.

Titanium Dragon (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the WaPost cites one element, and infact we use that one element though the Wa Post article to describe one good opinion in the Wa Post's eyes, but that doesn't make the rest of the article usable. But I also point to the fact that many points in the lead are not introduced in the article, which is wrong by lead standards. --17:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Masem, you still need to acknowledge this point, " "The present introduction does not follow the standard formatting for such things, as I noted above; we never start out by describing a controversial topic with criticism by its detractors, even when it is completely ridiculous (see also: 9/11 conspiracy theories, reptilians, ect.)." Currently this article starts out with detractors, instead of the movement. PseudoSomething (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no organized movement, that's the problem. It's thousands of gamers without unified thought, so we cannot shape what GG is until it either dies or or someone figures out how to solidify it. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, well expect a post hopefully today going over the major sources... that I already went over..., that many a many go over the Journalist ethics and corruption. PseudoSomething (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

No, you misread (and please don't waste time in writing, not because I'm ignoring he sources - I know what they say and what is lacking). What is lacking is any type of (may not the best words but the point should be there) an agenda or manifesto of what the GG "movement" wants. "We want X in journalism. We want Y in journalism", etc. If that actually is defined and presented to gaming websites, maybe there will be good traction to improve coverage. Right all we can do is hodgepodge several different sources to say "Well, we think the proGG want this and this", but nothing concrete. You're not going to be able to do better than that from the sources provided. That's why as long as this GG "movement" remains as disjointed as it is, very little weight is being given to that side by the mainstream media because it looks just a bunch of angry gamers speaking up. Maybe we will have some source in the near future that clearly defines the specific goals of the GG movement, but we don't have that now. That's been the issue from the start, and why we can't really write a strong lead until we know how best to describe what's going on directly. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Masem, you just posted about that "We have enough sources to know that journalism ethics is an issue " "We want X(Higher Ethics) in journalism." There, done. This article now can be written to conform to WP policy. Right now, it starts with detractors. You already have a line about ethics in the lead, so you can use those sources. It will be a stronger, and it will follow WP policy, if we rewrite it to conform to those standards. Also, many of the sources I provided are not being used, and instead, are ignored in place of ones that push the 'Hatred of Women' aspect. PseudoSomething (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

No, that's nowhere close to what would be expected. How do you define higher ethics? That's a hand-waving goal. Meaning that it is fine out it is called out in the lead presently (that the issues of journalist ethics are part of this) but until we know what exactly gamers want, it's vague and nebulous. Do they want reviewers to mention all friendships and relationships with specific game devs/publishers when a review is published? Do they want journalists to be able to participate in Patreons or the like as long as there is disclosure? That's the type of thing that would help define what GG wants better but there's nothing like that in sources, just cries of "be more ethical". --MASEM (t) 17:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: As I noted above, the article at present is in an unacceptable state and needs to be fixed, as it suffers from WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV issues. The fact that the article doesn't really talk about censorship at present, given how important it was to the whole thing, is pretty ironic and needs to be corrected, and the fact that the lead doesn't match the article - when that is, indeed, the proper lead for the article, at least in my eyes - is an indication of problems with the article, not problems with the lead. I was going through and trying to work on the article when you reverted my edit. We don't really need to cite What Culture on a whole lot; we can simply remove who was doing the harassment, as that is the only thing which was cited uniquely to them. Everything else is found in other sources, as noted - the Washington Post sources the claim that gamers perceive the claims of misogyny as an attempt to deflect criticism.

Also, re: the allegations further down in the article: actually, yes, we do care. The nature of the allegations is noted in innumerable reliable sources, including the Washington Post, and even her supporters acknowledge what the allegations were, though they view them as slut shaming (I tried to find a RS on that, incidentally, but unfortunately, it seems that they don't really use that term in a lot of the articles - I found it in tons of blog posts and comments sections, but in very few real sources). Understanding what the allegations were is very important, and the fact that it wasn't just Nathan Grayson has been noted in numerous sources. Understanding that it was her ex making a post accusing her of infidelity is important to understanding why there was so much feminist outrage over the issue, because the nature of the original blog post pretty much was what enraged them so. Well, that and the implications of corruption, which it seems were well-founded, given the leak of internal emails which went out today.

We have tons of RSs on what they see the thing as being about; it isn't about any one thing, which is why I listed off a bunch of issues because those are the ones attested to in the RSs. But it certainly isn't about sexism and misogyny from the point of view of the GamerGate supporters, and thus, the lead is just outright wrong. Titanium Dragon (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You will continue to be reverted if you continue to attempt to rewrite the article against both the mainstream POV of reliable sources and the consensus on this talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec)This article is written in full compliance with what the sources have actually reported on keeping to the structure and format they use for presenting the event. Does it make gamers look bad? Heck yes, I fully agree, and hence why I've tried to get as many things to support the proGG side in the article that have been identified. But we cannot change the views that are given by reliable sources without breaking our core content policies. Sources, not our personal knowledge or desires, drive our content and we cannot change that. If the media is presenting this in what can be considered an non-impartial manner, our hands our tied. And that's the problem is the press is clearly painting the proGG side as villainous here. Get the press to produce more positive coverage and the arguments from the proGG side, and then we can do something about that. --MASEM (t) 17:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that it doesn't actually act in full compliance with what the sources have reported on, contrary to what you're saying. Look at that big long list of sources that I posted in the talk thread; how many of those talked about the gamer standpoint? Many of them! Heck, we cite Forbes, which notes the censorship and the Streisand effect, and now Breitbart got their hands on a bunch of emails from various game journalists and people involved in games journalism detailing their organized attempts at censoring this material on various websites, which is now being picked up by other sources. Ars Technica even wrote a response article because of it. Right now the article sucks and is biased, and it excludes an entire, major viewpoint. Titanium Dragon (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course they talk about the gamers' POV, but they do not present a cohesive discussion, a lack of clearly shared ideals in the gamer community. As such, we cannot say there is even a true GG movement (akin to Occupy Wall Street). And right now, if Breitbart is the only source of this apparent collusion, that's about as useful as Quinn's reported logs - eg zero value for us and not something we can go into. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

They do present a cohesive discussion. They bring proof of things, as well as report on events such as the censorship, and create a discussion from it. They even have results to back their articles up (the ethics policy changes). We can honestly say there is a true GG movement if this article is still up and we have those sources talking over and over about what Gamergate wants (Higher Journalism ethics). We have Forbes, Slate, and many others talking about it. PseudoSomething (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

No they don't. You have to use multiple sources to create this idea that GG has specific goals, and that is synthesis. Ideally, someone in the GG community will put out a statement of what the GG movement wants, gaining backing back the community as a reflecting of its ideals, listing a number of specific things they would like to see in journalism going forward, and present that as points for discussion. That single source , assuming journalistic sites pick that up, then makes it clear what GG is, and thus we can move forward on actually expressing the shape of GG. You cannot do that with the hodgepodging that is there right now. We can try to make heads and tails of all that in the analysis section, but that's the best attempt to define a shape without it. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

"imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", we wouldn't have to, many sources talk directly on Journalism Ethics. Even if you don't think that, we already have a sourced line that we can move to the front to follow WP standards. "The controversy also includes discussions about journalistic ethics in the online gaming press, particularly conflicts of interest between video game journalists and developers,". So really, we already have a sentence that can be used for standardization, but it is not being used, and therefore, does not hold up to standard. ----- Also, so we don't have two separate discussion, even though we cannot pin an exact goal, we still know an aim, a high sources aim of the movement, which should be the starting point of the article, since as TD pointed out, it starts with detractors. We have the information, we have at least one aim of the movement that is sourced heavily, but it still starts with detractors. PseudoSomething (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The sources do actually say that the GamerGaters are interested in such things - the sources indicate that its advocates are for all of these things to varying degrees. One thing all of them agree on is that the folks that they interviewed all say that it isn't about misogyny. And I even have a cite from Slate for the social justice advocates harassing people:

• After game critic John Bain, aka TotalBiscuit, asked everyone to calm down, he was branded a misogynist and shouted down. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Irregardless of the above, I have added two things to the article that are proven sourcable through this discussion: the issues leading to the streisand effect (censorship) (From Forbes) , and the claim of gamers that the media used the misogmy aspect to deflect criticism (from WaPo). --MASEM (t) 18:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Also to address points in this, I did a small rework of the lead so that both the misogynmy of gamers, and the ethics of gaming journalism, are on the same line, in otherwords giving them about as much "equal" weight in terms of this being part of the controversy. (eg we are saying what each sides, journalists and gamers, are saying). It is completely fair and balanced to say these two points are equally weighted in the sources if we are talking about what the controversy is about. (If we were talking about the movement, yes, that's not true, but that's not what is given so far). --MASEM (t) 19:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

That is better if we are talking about a controversy, I will agree. The only thing is, when do we say when its a controversy and when its a movement? Considering here, and in sources, we talk about 'Pro-GG' and 'anti-GG', shouldn't we consider this a movement, and like the writing style on the conspiracy theorist article (since that seems to be a good example), write about what the movement is, and then the controversy around it? PseudoSomething (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A quick google search suggests this is still a controversy (4x more hits) than a movement. If it actually gels as a movement, we can likely then source it that way, but right now, it is a 2-way debate between gamers and journalists. --MASEM (t) 02:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Well lets go back to the WP writing style for these sorta things. Lets go back to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, since it fits really well here. Are you going to find very many articles that speak of the conspiracy theories in the way they want? They define themselves as truth seekers, and their detractors see them as crazy people. So right now, if the writing style for this lead was use, it would state, "The 9/11 Conspiracy Theories are people who have been reported to be delusional, but see themselves as trying to find truth in the 9/11 situation." It doesn't fit the standard writing style, even though the current lead you made made it slightly better. So, according to the standard writing style for these sorts of articles, we need to describe what #gamergate people define the movement (or what we can find, because even you said we can pin down the ethics part). PseudoSomething (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: Alright, so here's the question: apart from citations, what is wrong with my proposed lead? I can resource everything, but this seems like it mentions all the big points - we talk about what the GamerGaters are advocating for, we talk about when it started, we talk about what happened (harassment, which is obviously one of the big stories here), and we talk about their detractors' view on them. This seems to follow from things like white supremacy, reptilians, 9/11 conspiracy theories and the like. The lead is supposed to explain to people what the people who are advocating for it are about - white supremacists are about whites holding cultural, economic, and social supremacy over people of other races. We don't say "they're a bunch of racist jerks" in the lead, even though that is the majority viewpoint on them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The primary issue is that it focused too much on details that we don't know how important they are to the overall long-term issue here. We know some issues are certainly core, and the events around Quinn as the spark, but that's it. The details you go into are certainly elements of the problem but how much weight to be given to be put into the lead is questionable. (Also, and I shouldn't have to say this, but it flipped around the weight of the misogymy claims with the journalism claims, when as mentioned over and over, the misogymy issues remain foremost discussion in all reliable articles) --MASEM (t) 02:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Except that doesn't follow the writing style on WP articles like this. Again, look at the articles that were provided. They describe what the people think of themselves, before detractors. Right now, detractors are first, which mean this article doesn't stand up to scrutiny of the standard writing style. You even admitted we can find enough to know they are even fighting for journalism ethics, so we have the information, but you are refusing to allow the GG people to define themselves in the lead, and forcing them to take a back seat to their detractors. PseudoSomething (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Once again, There is no deadline to get the lead right; all those other articles, there is no real new flow of information there so they can figure out the key points and work from there, while we are still waiting to see what GG is really about. And we have to go with how the issues are presented in the sources; the proGG side may see it as putting the detractors first, but because the incident was sparked by harassment, the press have put them as the focus first. We can't change that until the press themselves change their tune.--MASEM (t) 17:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wait wait wait.... so since there is most likely more articles talking about how 9/11 conspiracy theories are delusional, instead of seeking the truth of the matter, we should go change it right? I mean, that is what you are saying here, And we have to go with how the issues are presented in the sources; the conspiracy theorist side may see it as putting the detractors first, but the press have put the delusion as the focus first. Right? We can't change that until the press themselves change their tune. (Of course I am not going to go change it, but basically word from word right there we saw how similar the situation is, and it is not be standardized). PseudoSomething (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

We are talking about a controversy, not a group of people. If this article were "GamerGate Supporters", then yes, we would introduce it as gamers that want to see ethics changes in the media, followed by some possible detractions. But we're talking the controversy here, and to that, the first thing on the menu from all sources is the negative aspect of harassment that bore it out. --18:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Except, the 9/11 conspiracy theorist isn't entirely a movement either, but it still lets them define themselves first. Most of the 'Hatred of women' aspect in these articles are aim -at- gamergate, not describing their goals. Lets look at the first 5 sources. Forbes "While the initial concerns were quickly proven to be all smoke and no fire, the revelations led to further questions by many gamers, and so the #GamerGate movement was born." dailydot This source doesn't even mention Gamergate. cinemablend "#GamerGate seems to be the term summing up this general dissatisfaction with the press. " \telegraph "But trolling women is not what gamers claim that 'GamerGate' is all about. They feel that Quinn’s alleged sex life proves a questionable relationship between journalists and developers." Aljazeera "But a counter trend alleging corruption and condescension in gaming media is now spreading through the hashtag #GamerGate (link is external). The hashtag has been used (link is external) more than 189,000 times, as members of the gaming community debate what they call snobby attitudes of gaming journalists towards players." So Forbes says this is a movement from further revalations, dailydot doesn't even mention gamergate but talks about the hatred of women, cinemablend says its dissatisfaction with the press, telegraph says gamers say its for ethics, but they think its for trolling women, and aljazeera says its a counter trend against corruption. So in two sources, they have direct claims that it is about journalism ethics, one says its about general dissatisfaction with the gaming press, one says its a counter trend, and one doesn't even mention it. So instead of going with the sources saying that Gamergate people define themselves as pushing for journalistic ethics, we go with the source that says, "They say its about this, but we know its about this." This does not follow precedent like the 9/11 controversy article. PseudoSomething (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, comparing apples to oranges. There's no strong evidence that this is being considered - overall - a movement (but yes, it might turn that way? but it's still 4x as many hits for "controversy" as there is for "movement"), so it is a multi-sided controversy, and as such, we're presenting the core issues as reported by reliable sources that all sides have with it, and, in the bulk general order of all sources in the article (not just those 5), the misogymy is still foremost over the ethics. We cannot change from what the media (even the non-VG media) present this as, and because a small number of people took to harass others, which is a much more appalling act in the eyes of the media compared to possible collusions between developers and journalists, that issue is going to be reported on first by those sources. We would need the press to completely reframe the subject for us to reflect that it is a movement about ethics, over the issues of misogymy; keep in mind while we've identified that GG generally refers to the gamer's side of the equation, many press associate the harassment as part of what GG entails and use that term to reflect any part of the controversy. Also keep in mind that there are still some in the press that are convinced that the ethics aspect was a means to quickly cover up the mess that those that harassed Quinn and others made, and as such, until that attitude is gone or proven wrong, the ethics question will always be secondary. I am totally understanding that if there was a reframing of this in the press, we could write this better to present the ethics first, but we are stuck with sources that focus on the harassment and misogymy first. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Its not though, its exactly as TD stated. "The present introduction does not follow the standard formatting for such things, as I noted above; we never start out by describing a controversial topic with criticism by its detractors, even when it is completely ridiculous (see also: 9/11 conspiracy theories, reptilians, ect.)." It does not follow precedent. This is a controversial topic that has been stated (even in detracting sources), that this movement is or claims to be about ethics in journalism. I just showed you the first 5 sources that state that... well 4 do(The other doesnt even talk about gamergate). Two state about harassment against someone, yet it is first. "because a small number of people took to harass others, which is a much more appalling act in the eyes of the media compared to possible collusions between developers and journalists, that issue is going to be reported on first by those sources" Ok, great, they are detractors then, since they focus on what is happening from the movement, and not what the movement is about. It does not hold up to WP standards. "convinced that the ethics aspect was a means to quickly cover up the mess that those that harassed Quinn and others made" And many people think 9/11 controversies are delusional, but that article still starts out with what it is, not what it is described as. This article does not follow the precedent already set about these topics, and as such, should be rewritten. PseudoSomething (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a controversy, unlike all those other examples, and as such has more than one side. As such, talking about the issues involve, one side is going to be listed in the negative first, whichever way it is listed. If we put ethics first, that's a detractor towards journalists; if we put misogyny first, that's a detractor towards the gamers. One side is going to be slighted first, we can't help that. And as the press presents the misogymy aspect first. If we could reframe this as a "movement" so that it was about their ideals, of course we then can put the ethics first, but there's not enough to set it as the movement. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Masem, provide me sources that say Gamergate is about the Hatred of Women, that doesn't include, "The people in the movement say it is about ethics, but we know its about the hatred of women." Since the only source that currently describes the first sentence, that includes anything about the movement being about the hatred of women, says, ""But trolling women is not what gamers claim that 'GamerGate' is all about. They feel that Quinn’s alleged sex life proves a questionable relationship between journalists and developers." Hell, the first sentence is sourced by more RS'es saying its about ethics, and one saying its about the hatred of women, yet the later point gets told first. PseudoSomething (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You just did, pointing out that there are two (or more) sides to this. The GamerGate controversy is about both sides, not one. If this was the GamerGate "movement" then yes, that would be different. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Except, currently in the intro, we are giving undue weight to the criticism of the movement. Three mainly talk about the ethics/corruption angle, while one talks about the harassment. The other one has no mention of gamergate. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

No we don't. Both sides are discussed once. --MASEM (t) 21:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if you were going with the sources, you would list journalistic ethics/corruption first, as 4 of them list something about it, but only one talks about harassment. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

There are more than 5 sources in the article. We are not just counting the five listed. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

That is why I asked for more sources that explain what #GamerGate is, since 3 of the sources in the lead talk about journalism ethics and corruption. If that lead is correct, there needs to be sources that say what people under the hashtag are saying, since this article is based on the hashtag. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: I think I see what you're getting at; you're suggesting that GamerGate is more about a scandal than a movement - the name itself suggests scandal. I can see making that argument. However, when we talk about stuff like that, we yet again follow the same sort of formatting; look at Watergate scandal or Lewinsky scandal. We don't put into the lead of the Lewinsky scandal that it was an attempt to assassinate the character of Bill Clinton, even though that is a, very possibly the, mainstream perspective. We talk about what it was about. The only people who claim that the whole GamerGate thing is about misogyny is people outside of the push behind the controversy. Therefore, it is inappropriate, per our usual way of writing said articles, to include it in the lead sentence. The first sentence is typically what the whole thing is about, followed up by some additional major details, with people who are detractors of whatever the issue is typically coming afterwards - including if the mainstream view is that the issue is nonsense. Look at 9/11 conspiracy theories and 9/11 Truth movement. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a scandal (or at least proven out as one, if we're talking about the ethics side). It is a controversy , where there are multiple sides so the lead needs to be covered in the lead. --MASEM (t) 21:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I would actually say, with how this article is laied out, #GamerGate is a hashtag that many gamers started using to use to show their dissatisfaction with gaming journalism. The sources from the first sentence will back that up. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, several outlets have changed their ethics policies to ban behavior which has occurred in the past. Given the usual definition of "scandal", I'd say this probably qualifies as one, seeing as these events have certainly spawned widespread outrage in the gamer community.

That being said, a number of sources refer to people who are advocating for change to be "GamerGate supporters" or talk about the "GamerGate movement" or "the movement" when talking about people who are pressing the issues. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

We cannot call it a scandal without reliable sources calling it that; it is definitely OR to compare "changing policies" to a scandal. And while I will agree that the concept of GG being a movement is building in sources, but it is far from sufficient to switch this article to that facet, but it is a possibility to consider. --MASEM (t) 22:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

So I did some reading on WP policies, just to keep up my knowledge on policies and such. If I am thinking about this correctly, essays are not pure policy, but are things that are good guides to go by. Well considering two of these essays I found, the intro needs to be re-written. WP:CONTROVERSY states, "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant." This states a group of people, not a 'movement'. People under the #GamerGate tag fall under a group. Again, TD included some articles for precedence in his writing. Also, on the same essay, it says "When characterizing a person, event, or action, an assertion should likewise be attributed to an acceptable source. A regular news story from a mainstream media organization is best, but don't rely on the journalist to report the bias of its sources accurately.", so words like 'Vitrol' need to either be directly sourced when quoted, or not be quoted at all. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

As Masem has noted, this article isn't "about a controversial person or group." This article is about the controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The people who support #Gamergate put themselves under that hashtag, meaning a group of people. Even the telegraph source from the first sentence indicates, "The hashtag is being used by some video game fans around the world, (known as gamers),". That is a group of people using the hashtag. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That's correct, but this article does not cover the mere existence of that group. The article is about the controversy as a whole. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Going by your logic, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories doesn't cover the mere existence of 9/11 conspiracy theorist, but it still is written by WP:CONTROVERSY. There is precedent backing up the rewriting of the intro. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, there really isn't. That article is a content fork to expand conspiracy theories beyond the (small) space allocated to them in our main article on the September 11 attacks, which covers the mainstream point of view of the events of 9/11 and mostly omits mention of the fringe conspiracy theories. The main topic is not "conspiracy theories," it's the 9/11 attacks.

The comparison here would not be to rewrite the main article on GamerGate in the way that you want; this article would remain the home of the mainstream point of view of the events as discussed in reliable sources. Rather, the logical comparison would be to create a separate article called GamerGate conspiracy theories, in which we would document the fringe conspiracy theories espoused by some people, accompanied by extensive rebuttals from mainstream sources which declare them to be nothing more than conspiracy theories and debunk the claims.

I'm guessing that's not really what you want, though, is it? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Soooo, "Someone brought up an essay that covers the subject, and precedent, lets find a way to try to mock them and discredit their point." The precedent would be to rewrite the article, or the lead at least, just like the precedent I showed you. By your logic, it does not deal -directly- with the group, but relates directly to the group through the hashtag, so precedent says we go with WP:CONTROVERSY. Let the group define themselves through sources in the intro. Since you know, Forbes, Slate, etc. etc.PseudoSomething (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. Once again with feeling, the main article for the 9/11 attacks is September 11 attacks, and that article is written with an entirely-mainstream point of view. The main article for the GamerGate controversy is GamerGate, and that article will be written with an entirely-mainstream point of view.

We have a separate article for the conspiracy theories about 9/11, and if you want us to have a separate article for the conspiracy theories about GamerGate, that's a discussion to have. But we don't make the main 9/11 article feature the conspiracy theories, and we aren't going to make the main GamerGate article feature the conspiracy theories either. Your analogy doesn't work the way you want it to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, my analogy fits perfectly, your just trying to push the point past what we are looking at, and making it about something else. We are not talking about the specific article, we are talking about precedent of the lead. Again, WP:CONTROVERSY states "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant." An example of that is 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. There's nothing past that, especially since we have WP:RS that show what #GamerGate people are pushing toward. So this is a controversial subject, with a controversial group, that their views are currently not being described accurately, even if you think it is misguided. It fits word for word what WP:CONTROVERSY says. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This is about an event more than it is about a group.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

We go through this every few years in different topics. For a time, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories was a battlezone, with legions of outsiders swamping the page with demands that "The Truth(tm)" be represented in the article...Obama was a Kenyan, a Muslim, a Marxist, and all that birther jazz, citing a laundry list of fringe sources. In the end, they are driven off, it is the way it will happen here too, it just takes time and patience. Tarc (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Good thing we have WP:RS and not a fringe view. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

...Which do not identify GG as a "group", yet. There's a possible trend it might go that way but it's both OR and Crystal-balling to make the change to that at this time. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I am using the first ten sources for this next reponse. Out of the ten, seven contained a mention of gamergate. WaPo "But many gamers saw this as an effort by the media to deflect criticism of the increasingly leftist orientation of indie games. So they adopted #GamerGate." A group of people adopting the tag. Time "The GamerGate crusaders leap to employ legal terminology like fancy weapons they are clearly confused about how to wield." aljazeera "But a counter trend alleging corruption and condescension in gaming media is now spreading through the hashtag #GamerGate" ("A trend that opposes mainstream or popular trends.") telegraph "The hashtag is being used by some video game fans around the world, (known as gamers)," cinemablend " If journalists don't support our interests, these gamers reason, let's just get rid of them. #GamerGate seems to be the term summing up this general dissatisfaction with the press. " Forbes "While the initial concerns were quickly proven to be all smoke and no fire, the revelations led to further questions by many gamers, and so the #GamerGate movement was born." newyorker "Tens of thousands of tweets were written, most of them accompanied by the hashtag #gamergate. Many Twitter users involved in the discussion called for more clarity and disclosure by writers about the relationships they have with independent creators." So many, if not most, of those sources point toward a group of people adopting, or coming together, under that hashtag. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

But some of those are vague about it being a movement over a controversy, and there are very few calling it outright a movement. They're going that way, as I've said, but they're nowhere at the point that we can do a complete inversion of this article give that people are still talking about the event (the harassment and subsequent fallout) first and foremost, and the ideals second. Patience here might be better. --MASEM (t) 01:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Like I was pointing out though, WP:CONTROVERSY is specific about a 'Group', not specifically a movement. Many of those RS describe it as some type of group. I know what you mean by patience, but we have current RS stating in one way or another that there is a group of people behind the tag. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You have reliable sources describing a fringe view as fringe. Tarc (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That is factually incorrect. We have already comiled a large number of RS that describe and focus on, the GG movement, and not criticism. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that an overwhelming number of sources say otherwise, and indeed, given that numerous members of the press have noted Zoe Quinn as being personally insignificant, would that not suggest that Zoe Quinn's viewpoint is the fringier thing? :P There are huge numbers of sources on this. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Re-including SJW as a term

I understand some of the previous reasoning this was removed but I feel that it is a problem not to include, since the term is used by many of the RS we cite, despite its derogatory nature; it also arguably should be a searchable term redirected here for anyone searching for that. We should be able to clinically define it so that the term is explained in as minimally problematic manner, but never otherwise touch on it again unless it comes up in quotes or the like. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It is problematic since different people refer to it as something different. The first citation on the article says that SJW is "a derogatory term for people in the video-game industry who use the medium to talk about political issues". What if someone uses it as meaning something else? Are there rules in place for that? --86.140.193.228 (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

That isn't really an accurate description of a SJW anyway; it is not about political issues in general, it is specifically about people who advocate for the Tumblr idea of social justice, specifically centering around the idea of privilege. Titanium Dragon (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

We would probably need to rely on one or two external quotes for the definition, but it is improper to ignore the fact that some threw the term "SJW" around to describe their opponents, with that term being reflected in discussions. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I feel that in the selecting of the quotes there could be ample opportunity for someone to craft a narrative i.e. referencing only the times in which is was used to deride people for campaigning for a cause, thereby making it seem as though SJW is something always said with derision. Or I could be paranoid about nothing. But the part about how it is used should be the main meat of the article, not what it is defined as. --86.140.193.228 (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The term is a loaded term to start, so it is going to present a bias. The key is to say that the term is a biased term, in a clinical manner. Eg "The term "SJW" was used by some supporting GG to describe those game developers and journalists that promoted the use of video game and video game journalism to push political and social justice issues." --MASEM (t) 17:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not the article to be defining terms for the reader, though, that would be Social justice warrior, if there is enough sourcing out there to support that. Although, much the same as the hip-hop community took the "n" word back, some within the gamer realm are embracing this term as well. Be careful what you wish for, if you're going to put a spotlight on "SJW". Tarc (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I... actually agree with Tarc. The phrase started as a derogatory term toward extremist in mainly feminist movements, but especially after this controversy, some are trying to redefine it as fighting for equal rights. So the term is not stable, and not well defined. PseudoSomething (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we could make an article on it as a neoglism. The other option is simply to say that some gamers called involved journalists/devs as "social justice warriors (SJW)" and let the term be left on its own, letting the reader make their own judgements. I just don't think we can ignore the term. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

So considering the above, I think the right and only place to include this is about others who got harassed after Quinn: currently this is Those who came to her defense were also targeted, including... I would add it here: Those who came to her defense were also targeted, and frequently called out as "social justice warriors" (SJW). Among those targetted included... That's it, it provides a term for readers to know when they go into sources that repeat it. Please let me know if this is a problem. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

If we mention the phrase we have to mention that it's considered derogatory, and because it's not self-applied, we must identify the people or groups making the claim. That is, we cannot say that "people are SJW" or "are called out as SJW" — we must in-text attribute the claim and discuss what reliable sources say about the phrase. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The wording I give implicitly states who is calling out others as SJW, though can be worded to say "by detractors" or some other language. We do not have to get into if the phrase is specifically meant demeaningly (I have seen essays from proGGers that use it without insult only to refer to Quinn and those that support her in discussing the issues in a non-threatening manner), or what it means, simply that it exists. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that there is really no correct way to describe them, because they haven't really gotten a whole lot of coverage as a group in reliable sources of which I am aware. The Tumblr Social Justice brigade is a "thing", but I'm not sure if it has really been noted, and while they are described as SJWs by many people who are familiar with them, they do not call themselves such. I'm not sure if we should really be referring to them as "social justice warriors" in the article; if we do, it should probably be contextualized. I don't think we need to describe Zoe Quinn et. al. as SJWs in the article text, convenient as that may be. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The point is that we don't need to say specifically whom called whom that phrase, but that it is a phrase used in the GG context and repeated in multiple sources. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I say that we should keep it out for now. Without an idea of what it means people who read sources with it will probably get confused when it is said. And if we add an idea of what it means then what do we do if the sources conflict with our definition? --86.140.193.228 (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Eron Gjoni's allegations

The only allegations that are relevant have been disproven. Continued obsession with someone's sex life needs to be indulged in an off wiki forum. WP:BLP

This sentence is presently a disaster, but @Masem: is unhappy with my changes to it. Numerous RSs, including the Washington Post, note exactly what the post was - allegations of infidelity with men in the video game industry. This is precisely what it was, and we ALREADY note that he alleged that she cheated on him with Grayson, so I'm not sure why this is an issue. I will also note that we are violating WP:SAID in this section at the moment. We should simply use "said" whenever possible, or "according to" or similarly neutral language; someone scolded me last night for "claimed", and "alleged" is not really any better. Also, in this case, we actually have primary evidence of his claims, seeing as he posted the primary material online, so it makes it even stranger. I think rewording this sentence (possibly breaking it up into two sentences, as I had done) might be the best way of going about fixing this. Titanium Dragon (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC) We only need to know of the claimed allegation regarding Grayson. Any other facet of her personal life (including additional claims of personal impropriety) are not issues in GG, and beyond the bounds of this article, and are also BLP issues and should not be incldued. Hence why the focus on making sure the one specific claim (which, would be a BLP Issue if not core to this problem) is clearly identified and address. All others are to be ignored here. --MASEM (t) 17:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC) @Titanium Dragon: are you alleging that gamergate is about a woman's alleged personal relationships and the horrific response that people using the gamergate hashtag have promulgated about them? I thought you were one of the many claiming that gamergate has nothing to do with harassment and is only about journalistic integrity.... -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Zoe Quinn has received numerous death threats and people have criticized her behavior on pretty much every front imaginable. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think that people have not acted reprehensibly against Zoe Quinn. The fact that you believe such suggests tribalistic thinking you should divorce yourself from. Just because I understand why people are upset does not mean that I am on "their side". Indeed, the original reason I came to the Zoe Quinn article was because I had assumed it would be overrun by angry gamers ranting about Zoe Quinn. The nature of the allegations is central to the narrative that the whole thing is grounded in misogyny; not making note of the allegations, which are attested in innumerable sources, is to leave out something very important from the issue. We report on sex scandals all the time. In the end, this is not "really" about Zoe Quinn, but the Zoe Quinn incident is what sparked a greater conflagration from a bunch of pre-existing issues, and it is important to note what it was. A lot of people used it as a launching point for whatever their agenda was - yelling about how misogynistic gamers were, yelling about corruption in video game journalism, ect. It is also important to contextualize the Grayson thing, because Grayson was not the only focus of Gjoni's ire; Grayson ended up being the one that got picked up on the most by the gaming community precisely because of pre-existing issues with journalistic integrity and pushing of a certain point of view in gaming journalism. His situation is probably the most understandable of the lot of them, and the reason people got so upset over him instead of one of the other people who was named was because of long-standing issues with games journalism. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC) So basically you're saying that we should cover this as a sex scandal. You can never again be taken seriously when you claim that this is about "journalism ethics" - your true colors have been shown. This is not about journalism ethics, it's about trying to shame a woman for having sex. QED. The other allegations are not encyclopedic because they have not been widely discussed in reliable sources. In general, news outlets do not consider accusations of infidelity noteworthy unless there is a matter of public interest attached - such as the possibility of a journalistic conflict of interest. Quinn's relationship with Grayson had the potential for a conflict of interest, and therefore was a legitimate subject of public interest. There is no apparent public interest in any of Gjoni's other allegations and therefore reliable sources have ignored them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC) The present conflagration was sparked by a sex scandal and, to a lesser extent, Zoe Quinn's claims of being harassed while Depression Quest was going through Greenlight. This is uncontroversial and is attested by pretty much every reliable source. Given how many sources I have linked to which are, in fact, reliable - including Forbes, Al Jazeera, ect. - I am forced to assume you have not read any of them. There are a huge number of sources on this. The Telegraph interviewed some GamerGate folks and they discussed it. And, well, let's face it - they actually report on sex scandals all the time. Look at the royal family thing, or Bill Clinton. All that they really need is for someone to be famous and salacious details. In this case, the fact that there were other issues beyond the salacious details was what allowed others to pick up and run with it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Is GamerGate about journalism ethics or is it about who a woman slept with? I'm having a hard time keeping up with your changing story. First you want to rewrite the lede to downplay any connection with misogyny and harassment of women, now you want to add more allegations about Zoe Quinn that 1) have no sources and 2) have nothing to do with journalism ethics and everything to do with a jilted boyfriend airing dirty laundry in public. For a movement that's not about Zoe Quinn, you sure have an awful strong interest in depicting her negatively. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Per Forbes: Jilted ex-boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a long treatise on the alleged infidelity of his ex-girlfriend, video game developer Zoe Quinn. Members of the video game industry and press were implicated. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC) @Titanium Dragon: per that same forbes "the initial concerns were quickly proven to be all smoke and no fire, " - be aware that WP:NEWBLP content about living people is under discretionary sanctions and your repeated crossing the lines to cherry pick and misrepresent content about living people will get reported. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC) First off, several other sources note the opposite - the problem is, ultimately, the "all smoke and no fire" thing comes from them citing Kotaku, who claimed that Grayson did nothing wrong, really. And meanwhile participated in encouraging the censorship of all discussion on the matter on all gaming websites. We'll never really know, because all of it is ultimately dependent on Grayson's own testimony on his own behalf. Agreed. Eron makes claims on his blog. He cites chat logs with admissions from Zoe. Zoe does not deny claims, and in fact several of the other people have come forward, including her former boss, to own up to the affairs. Kotaku did an investigation and declared Grayson was not at fault for journalistic ethics violations, on the basis that their affair didn't begin until slightly after one of the articles was written. This was later contradicted by an article and livestream showing Grayson and Quinn on a trip to Las Vegas, right before the article was published, and a chat log where Quinn said, "the Vegas trip was when we got serious". Kotaku's determination that there were no ethical violations is their own prerogative, which many gamers disagree with. But at the end of the day, the sentence is poorly constructed. It implies that all of Eron's allegations are false, when in fact many of them have been confirmed or uncontested. 173.51.120.127 (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC) sooooo, people are riled up because someone is alleged to have a more interesting sex life than they do and we should spread these allegations because ..... ???-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Secondly, the "all smoke and no fire" relates to Grayson, not to the issues with infidelity, which are well-attested across dozens of RSs. So, it is not disputed by the RS at all. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC) I am not sure why you think issues of alleged infidelity have ANY pace here? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC) I'm not sure where you got the impression that I don't think that this was set off by an angry ex-boyfriend accusing his girlfriend of cheating on him and posting logs to prove it. That is precisely what set the whole thing off, that and the previous (possibly false, as all of the claims came from Zoe Quinn herself, which later caused The Escapist's article on the subject matter to be edited to note the lack of any sort of evidence) allegations of harassment claimed by Zoe Quinn when Depression Quest was going through Greenlight. However, the underlying issues and rage were pre-existing conditions, and additionally, Zoe Quinn showing vulnerability meant that some of the folks she had previously attacked (namely, The Fine Young Capitalists) felt like they could go public about it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC) So some people saw a woman being slut-shamed and decided to use that opportunity to dogpile her at her most vulnerable moment. OK then, thanks for confirming what the reliable sources have said about this being misogynistic harassment aimed at a powerless woman. You literally are sabotaging your own case with every post. "Journalism ethics journalism ethics journalism ethics!!! Wait but make sure we talk even more about who Zoe Quinn slept with because sex scandal!" NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC) It started with Zoe, it's impossible not to discuss the allegations that she slept with other people while she was dating him. As it's been pointed out above, that people discussed "five guys" was used by some to underscore their claims of misogyny in gaming, while others pointed to Nathan Grayson's involvement as a professional/ethical concern. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Indeed. It is necessary background and context. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Incidentally, re: dogpiling: you don't understand. It is the old saying: "When you appeal to force, there is one thing you must never do: Lose."(Redacted) you had TFYC who came forward and noted what she had done to them, ect. It is much like with Bridgegate up in New Jersey; once Christie had been hit on one front, people pointed out all the other corrupt things he had been up to. Also like the fall of the old Ukrainian government, where after he fell, all the corruption-type stuff came to be much better public knowledge, even though the reason he had been forced to flee was largely unrelated (namely, cracking down on the protesters, who ended up winning). It is very common. Indeed, that is why folks are using this to promote the anti-corruption agenda; basically, they saw the gaming press as having been weakened and its integrity questioned by this, so they could bring up a whole bunch of other issues against them. And it is worth remembering the only thing which has actually happened as a result of all this is several places changing or reviewing their ethics policies, which goes very strongly against the idea that it was all a bunch of misogyny. Okay, that's not true; Phil Fish may or may not sell his company. I haven't seen any actual sale yet, though, so it hasn't really happened yet. Unless it has and I missed it, because I really don't pay much attention to these things. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC) @Titanium Dragon: you have been warned a number of times. STOP your WP:BLP infringements or you WILL be subject to the discretionary sanctions -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC) @TheRedPenOfDoom: You do realize that is a link to "Recently created unreferenced biographies of living people", right? Did you mean to link to something else? I'm not violating BLP. It is well-attested in numerous sources on the subject matter. You seem to be confused about the policy you are citing. I would recommend re-reading it. We discuss this sort of thing all the time on Wikipedia, but only when it is notable. Dozens if not hundreds of articles indicates that it is probably noteworthy, and given that it was the impetus behind the whole thing, it would be impossible not to include it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC) @Titanium Dragon: sorry wrong link, i thought that was to a page that clarified Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Current_areas_of_conflict the bottom entry, items about living people anywhere are subject to discretionary sanctions. You are now aware and I now expect you to follow the BLP policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC) @TheRedPenOfDoom: BLP states that we must adhere strictly to WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. None of these are issues in this case, as it has been reported in dozens of sources at this point, making it readily verifiable, and obviously isn't original research. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "readily verifiable" is not a justification for unsourced, irrelevant BLP issues on the talk page. If you dont care to be careful, I wont care when you are blocked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Gamer allegations

What is the best, most neutral way of noting what the gaming community was complaining about? Presently we're using "alleged", but I'm not sure if that is the best term to use here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

1) WE don't summarize. We find third parties who have summarized. 2) the mainstream sources so far identify as "harassment" "harassment" "harassment" "harassment" "misogyny" "quit saying we are about harassment" "gamers arent dead" "harassment" "more harassment" "journalist have been in bed literally and figuratively with the gaming developers" "harassment" "harassment" . 3) There is not much coherent there to summarize. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Uh, you seem to be confused about what Wikipedia is; we do not copy-paste from sources, we write in our own words. And we have WP:NPOV. Using "allegations" is probably a violation of WP:SAID.

Also, you apparently haven't read the sources on this; they're right underneath this. Tons of them talk about what GamerGate is about, and it ain't harassment. Harassment is frequently mentioned but it isn't what it is about. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt The Red Pen of Doom is confused about what Wikipedia is, check their edit count --94.175.85.144 (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

to clarify, we dont summarized what the gamergaters want to be seen, we do summarize and represent what the mainstream reliable sources say are gamergates significant impacts - which i have read and which are : "harassment" "harassment" "harassment" "harassment" "misogyny" "quit saying we are about harassment" "gamers arent dead" "harassment" "more harassment" "journalist have been in bed literally and figuratively with the gaming developers" "harassment" "harassment" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Then you clearly haven't read very many articles about it. Look at the section below. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

i have looked at the reliable sources below and have confirmed my understanding that the mainstream representation is "harassment" "harassment" "harassment" "harassment" "misogyny" "quit saying we are about harassment" "gamers arent dead" "harassment" "more harassment" "journalist have been in bed literally and figuratively with the gaming developers" "harassment" "harassment". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Market concerns

Digitimes has already noted a similar worry. Here's a second voice.

http://adland.tv/adnews/gamergate-insulting-consumers-shrinks-market/1027025677

I'm not sure as to this source's reliability. I refer you to the author's about.me and Adland's press clippings. She's a marketing and advertising expert.

Willhesucceed (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

see our reliable source policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Willhesucceed:Digitimes is fine. I don't really know much about Adland, as I noted above, but the fact that it is written by someone under the penname of "dabitch" isn't exactly an encouraging as far as reliability goes. Though in all fairness, a lot of folks go by pseudonyms; Zoe Quinn's own name is a pseudonym. I actually just ended up looking into this and apparently, dabitch is Åsk Wäppling, and has apparently been involved in this since the mid-90s. She was listed as one of the most important bloggers in 2011 by Brand Republic, and apparently have been involved in Super Bowl ad stuff, so she actually might be a reliable source. Because, clearly, what Wikipedia has always wanted but has never had is an article reference with "dabitch" listed as its author. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Parenthetically, this isn't the first time Vivian James has illustrated an article on GamerGate. kencf0618 (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

They can afford the usage rights. We can't.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I've asked them if they'll release some Vivian James art under a free license. News on that when there is some. Willhesucceed (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

If they are willing to do so (and it should be the actual creator, or if TFYC had had it done work for hire, themselves) they can either upload that to Commons directly (with appropriate assertations of ownership), upload to Flickr using a free license (CC-BY or CC-BY-SA), or if it is something more complex where the identity wants to be kept private, following the instructions at WP:CONSENT to send a ticket to OTRS. --MASEM (t) 02:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparently she's public domain, so if anyone wants to draw her or track down the artist of one of her drawings and ask them for permission to use it, feel free. Willhesucceed (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if that was a reliable source, it is unuseable as the crux of the article is to try to compare gamergate with the villaination of D&D in the 80s, which is definitely a FRINGE point and would not be acceptable to include. --MASEM (t) 01:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

That's one sentence right at the end of the article. The rest doesn't mention anything about D&D. Surely there's other content there that's usable. Whether it's relevant or needed is another discussion. Willhesucceed (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Re Cracked article by Quinn

Again, I iterated the issue with Cracked.com's article by Quinn but to stress why we can't use that: Cracked is a satire magazine/website. Yes, they will sometimes touch on topics of interest, but they are always presented with sarcasm and crudeness; Quinn's piece is no less different (particularly when you compare to her more serious interviews). So we don't know where Quinn is speaking honestly, and when she's not. In contrast to APGNation, they are simply not a strong RS but they aren't certainly writing for humor and sarcasm, and an interview would be an carefully accepted primary source). To add: pay attention to all the claims about bias here on the talk page, and how this isn't about the harassment, etc. I'm not saying those are true, but be aware that adding more to have Quinn talk about her harassment has very little to do with understanding GamerGate, as we already have some viewpoints from her from non-questionable sources. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This in relation to what edit and what discussion here? Without links and references and for a new user, this would appear to be a comment made in a vacuum and merely a WP:NOTFORUM violation. Dreadstar ☥ 03:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It's clear from the history but it's specifically this edit. --MASEM (t) 03:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a link to what you are actually referring to. I suggest all editors do this so one doesn't have to guess what the comment is referencing. Dreadstar ☥ 03:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

At the point before my edits, Masem, we actually had zero quotes from Quinn discussing her experience of being harassed. The "Events" section has more discussion of the TFYC issue that's barely mentioned in a couple sources than it does of the harassment that made this a national media story. If anything, this article's discussion of the harassment in the "Events" section needs to be expanded because they are the most notable and widely-discussed events. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

We've established harassment occurred, it's what led this all off, etc. etc. We do not need to dwell on that point here (perhaps on her article, yes); we are working from the premise that everyone knows harassment is not okay and thus we should not glorify it futher, but given all the claims and issues of bias, we should be fully aware on adding anything more that might seem anti-GG that doesn't need to be there. And in terms of quotes, there are no quotes about TFYC - there are quotes on the Vivian character, which is reasonable for this article since that character was created in response and is the closest thing to a unified front the pro GG side has. --MASEM (t) 03:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

We extensively paraphrase TFYC's statements. We neither quoted nor paraphrased Quinn in any discussion of her experience of the harassment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I do agree how much we're giving to TFYC is a bit too much - outside of leading into the Vivian character. --MASEM (t) 04:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The standalone TFYC page might not exist much longer though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• agree that material from Cracked cannot be taken at face value and should not be used as a primary source in this article. if some reliable source comments on the Cracked piece, that third party commentary might be appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not quite sure, on the Quinn page users tried to use a Tumblr post by her as proof that she acknowledges that the events took place. It's strange to now see that users are against using a blog post by her on the subject with editorial for anything at all. Would people be okay with using it as direct quotes from her? I.e. "There was harassment... Zoe Quinn said writing for Cracked that blah blah" 94.175.85.144 (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • A point that some editors have brought up before is that the harassment of Quinn was the spark but that isn't what GG was about, which is a very fair point, and hence getting on this article into significant details of her harassment (beyond understanding the extent it was) is probably too much "pro Quinn" side. Maybe it would be okay on Quinn's page? I don't think the Cracked source at all would be appropriate because Cracked does not draw the line between obvious sarcasm and earnest reporting, even if it is a guest piece. Tumblr pages if we are 100% sure the author is Quinn (or anyone else) would be appropriate to include, though again if we are sure the piece is being written in earnest and not for fun. I've seen what Quinn said on twitter, she does have a very sarcastic side and thus I would be wary of any self-pub source from her for quoting her. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    • A point that some editors have brought up before is that the harassment of Quinn was the spark but that isn't what GG was about, which is a very fair point, and hence getting on this article into significant details of her harassment (beyond understanding the extent it was) is probably too much "pro Quinn" side. No, that is not a 'fair point.' For Wikipedia's purposes, GamerGate is about what the sources say it's about, and overwhelmingly, they're saying it's about harassment, most notably the harassment of Zoe Quinn. The harassment of Zoe Quinn and the resulting conversation about misogyny in gaming industry and culture is the reason thus article exists. If "media ethics" and the fine young capitalists were the main story there would not be enough coverage for this article to pass WP:WEB. What you're suggesting is making this article a WP:COATRACK that minimizes the topics and sources on which this article's notability depends in order to push what GamerGaters wish the sources were saying about their movement rather than what they're actually saying. -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
      • The harassment aspects have been explained in depth already, there's no attempt to dilute here, nor taking away that GG started because of harassment-based attacks at Quinn. But since that point, it's all been trying to understand why does the gap between gamers and journo/devs exist, and why would gamers turn to such harassment as a tactic; nearly all of our sources work on the assumption that harassment of the nature given is never a good thing and thus do not dwell on the specifics of the actual attacks beyond establishing what the level of vitriol was. As such, for that purpose, Quinn is the victim here (I know some think this is debatable but...) and her role as a victim is not as important to the analysis and understanding of the importance here beyond being the initial spark. Her opinion on being the victim doesn't help the overall aspect of GG and its subsequent analysis because sources actually implicitly condemn the harassment so they don't go into Quinn's feelings (or any of the others) further. On the other hand, if Quinn spoke about what could be done to improve the relationship between gamers and journos/devs, that would be valuable inclusion. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Cracked is not a reliable source for anything other than what Cracked has to say. Zoe Quinn is not a reliable source for anything other than what Zoe Quinn has to say. Easy peasy. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Cracked has editorial, with the executive editor being David Wong: http://www.cracked.com/members/David+Wong/ --94.175.85.144 (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Reporter heresay as gospel

Sarah Kaplan of The Washington Post wrote:

"sexism in gaming is a long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable problem"

I am not clear on why Kaplan claiming this is true means we should print it as fact. Shouldn't she actually have to support that with research? Or is anything a reporter says automatically just included? Ranze (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It is reported in a reliable source and is consistent with statements from the vast majority of other reliable sources discussing the issue.

Journalism is not academia and news stories are not scientific research; a journalist is not required to provide citations for each and every statement.

Our content is based upon the predominant viewpoint expressed in reliable sources covering the issue. That is policy. As has been repeatedly discussed here, the fact that some people disagree with what the reliable sources say does not permit us to ignore what the reliable sources say. Wikipedia is not an alternative media platform for presenting viewpoints which you believe are not properly covered in mainstream sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Jenn Frank has not left games journalism

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

---

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/20/women-gamers-new-concept-community

Apparently she wasn't run out of the industry. She was just gone long enough that news outlets could write about it. The Wiki article should be amended. Willhesucceed (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

From that "Days after the publication, I retired from writing about games. Then an editor at the Guardian asked me if I would venture out of my two-week retirement and explain why I love video games. It’s easy to be coaxed out of retirement when you have loved video games for 30 years and written professionally about them for nine." So yes, she's still retired. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Actually, this is a real issue under WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:RECENT. If someone says that they're quitting the internet forevers, and then doesn't, that's a bit of an issue, and we're talking about future events here, as they're claiming that they are not going to ever do it again. As-is, all we have as far as that goes is their word. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move at Sexual harassment in video gaming

I came across the sexual harassment article after seeing it mentioned in the GamerGate AFD. The scope of the sexual harassment article isn't actually sexual harrasment, and so I've suggested a move to a more generalist harassment article based on some of the GamerGate content, particularly the Analysis section. See Talk:Sexual_harassment_in_video_gaming#Requested_move_-.3E_Harassment_in_video_gaming - hahnchen 17:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Lol I saw plenty of raiders wanting to do this when the deletion discussion took place, where do you guys even come from Loganmac (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Request to add the DDOSing attack to The Escapist

I realize that almost any request here gets denied by the owners of the article but Forbes has made an article on it. Today The Escapist forums (which were the only of the mainstream news site to contain GamerGate discussion was DDOSed, this has been confirmed by The Escapist's co-founder Macris himself

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/20/the-escapist-forums-brought-down-in-ddos-attack/

That article has some info on the GameJournosPro but apparently that's not reliable because a right-win guy wrote, oh well. Also refers to the recent censorship on 4chan, and the still unmentioned reddit blackoutLoganmac (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Where should it go? Into Events or Response? --86.140.193.228 (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Events, I'd say. It's a new development within the encompassing incident, not something that someone decided to do after deliberating on the consequences of the controversy. Diego (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The Forbes article about the Escapist attack puts the journalists mailing list in the category of "reliable sourced through secondary sources. Together with Ars Technica's WP:ABOUTSELF, it's enough to mention the existence of GameJournoPros and the involvement of Breitbart as the snitch; although the contents of the emails other than the few covered by Forbes are still out of reach, the rest not being analyzed by secondary sources.

There's also some coverage from TweakTown, is it usable? Diego (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

No. It's literally just the Breitbart crap credulously regurgitated, with no evidence of independent reporting. "Here's what Breitbart said! OMG massive conspiracy, says Breitbart! Wow, if true." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that's precisely what many of the sources here do, yes? They regurgitate Zoe Quinn's claims and that's the only thing THEY use as evidence. Why can they do that and get mentioned, but when a different narrative comes doing the same thing, it can't be mentioned? 68.191.160.219 (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I take it you have a massive bias towards ZQ, of course you wouldn't want Milo's info in here Loganmac (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a bias toward ensuring that our coverage of issues relating to living people is fair, written conservatively and with regard for privacy and the avoidance of sensationalism and rumor-mongering. Additionally, I have a bias toward ensuring that our articles are based on reliable sources and properly represent the mainstream viewpoint of issues. Those "biases" I freely admit, because they are biases toward compliance with our encyclopedia's basic content policies.

On the other hand, every edit you have made since returning to the encyclopedia from a more-than-three-year absence has been related to attempting to depict living people in a negative light while downplaying what the reliable sources have to say about the campaign of harassment targeting them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Due to RedPen removing the section for 'undue emphasis', archiving it here for consideration:

The The Escapist underwent a DDoS attack that was specifically targeted at the #GamerGate thread in its forums. Site founder Alexander Macris claimed that “a large number of IP addresses targeted the #GamerGate thread for reload many times per second.” The Escapist were forced to temporarily take down their forums as a result. The shutting down of #Gamergate conversations on Reddit and 4chan had led to the Escapist becoming one of the main centers of online discussion regarding #GamerGate.(ref name="Forbes Escapist DDoS")Kain, Eric. "The Escapist #GamerGate Forums Brought Down In DDoS Attack". Forbes. Retrieved 21 September 2014.(/ref)(ref name=BSN)Strickland, Derek. "GamerGate Escapist Forums Forced Offline by DDoS Attack". Bright Side of News. Retrieved 21 September 2014.(/ref)

How well was this DDoS documented? Ranze (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

For some reason this topic has 2 sections dedicated to it. The 4 sources documenting the DDoS are detailed in the other section covering lower down on the page section 18.1 Bosstopher (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Entertainment is meant to be the furthest thing from politics??

I take it these people have never heard of Stephen Colbert.

But seriously, how do we correct opinions which are obviously incorrect in Wikipedia articles, without being perceived as pushing the opposite agenda?--greenrd (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

We allow other reliable sources to do the correcting for us, and present the POVs weighted in accordance with their prevalence in reliable sources. For example, we follow up those quotes with discussion from Leigh Alexander who we quote presenting the opinion that games as culture and games as entertainment are not mutually exclusive. If you think there could be more discussion of the issue added, feel free to give a shot at adding some. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Events section

This section feels like a bit of a muddled mess at the moment, and gives WP:UNDUE notice to harassment, while failing to talk adequately about other issues. I think it might be better to break it up by topic - start off with the events which started the whole thing (which is where it starts now), then go by topic chronologically - start out with censorship (we have plenty of sources on this), then harassment (we have plenty of sources on this too), then the ethics issues (we have a number of sources here, including the ones about various gaming journalism organizations revising or reviewing their ethics policies, people hiding their Patreon support, issues of journalistic integrity and conflicts of interest, ect.).

I'm honestly not super sold on the response section as-is, but I think hashing out the events is important here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You keep starting new sections for the same discussions, and we will keep telling you the same thing. The discussion of harassment is not WP:UNDUE. Drop the stick. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a huge number of sources, noted above, which note otherwise. Ergo, it is WP:UNDUE. I have noted this repeatedly. Harassment is a major issue, but it is not the only issue, as noted by innumerable sources. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Harassment is the primary issue of "gamergate"; the concern about ethics in journalism is secondary. Tarc (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The consensus on this page clearly disagrees with you about your interpretation and weighting of the mainstream reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the consensus on this page agrees with me. You seem to be mistaking volume for quantity. The vast majority of the drive by folks are saying that the article is biased. And a lot of new people who come here get bitten immediately if they disagree with your point of view. The consensus is clear - the page is biased. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

We are avoiding going into all the specific issues (even the section on TFYC is perhaps too large) because many of them are unfounded claims -both directions- to cover. The harassment has to lead this off because that is what brought all issues to the attention of the world at large. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, as noted in the Forbes article, it was the censorship which did that; the Streisand Effect occurred after the initial attempts at discussion were suppressed. The harassment of Zoe Quinn began in earnest after Zoe Quinn issued a takedown notice against MundaneMatt's video on YouTube, as well as suppression of discussion on Reddit, 4Chan, and elsewhere. The earliest reports of harassment appeared after that point, IIRC; it was a very small story until InternetAristocrat posted his Five Guys video and got 750k+ hits, and the video spread all over the place. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The censorship boosted the volume, but it wasn't the spark; harassment was there before that point. And the timing of all these events are extremely difficult to nail down (we have absolutley no sources on that) so that's why it's best to simply highlight the key events that have been recounted a few times. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. But the censorship has been noted by a large number of sources. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

And we have noted the censorship and the increase in participates including the Streisand Effect (as one RS uses that description) in the section. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This strikes me as yet another form of the "she was asking for it" excuse-making. Tarc (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You realize that it's incredibly obvious how much you are leaning on one or two cherry-picked sources and ignoring the overwhelming weight of mainstream reliable sources, right? The Washington Post, The New Yorker, Toronto Globe and Mail, NPR Marketplace, The Independent, The Telegraph, Time, The Guardian, Vox, The Los Angeles Times, Recode, The Week, etc. etc. etc. etc. all focused articles on the harassment endemic to the campaign. You simply dismiss all these sources as "biased," of course, but that does not make them so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

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

---

Virulent is not NPOV for anything other than a disease. Quoting a source on it doesn't mean it is any more neutral. Wikipedia is neutral; sources are not. We cannot simply quote sources in order to insert unacceptable behavior into Wikipedia articles, otherwise we could put all sorts of nasty things about people in. That's not Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

/yawns. Tarc (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we can quote reliable sources, and indeed, we are required to adhere to the predominant, mainstream point of view espoused in reliable sources. "Neutral" does not mean "no point of view." Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we can quote reliable sources, but we cannot quote reliable sources and insert their quotes into text in order to say things which we are not allowed to say under WP:NPOV. To do otherwise would be to push a POV, and would allow us to insert very negative things about people or events directly into the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

We are allowed to say that the campaign was "virulent" because the viewpoint that the campaign was "virulent," or similar language, is widely used in the reliable sources that discuss the issue. There are no reliable sources which attempt to downplay the harassment or which state that the harassment wasn't "virulent." In the absence of any opposing POV, it is effectively an unchallenged fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The only time we use words like this is when we attribute them to a specific source and it is in a reaction section. For instance, the only place we use the word "evil" on Adolf Hitler is to note that many historians use the word "evil" to describe him. It is simply not neutral to do otherwise. We can note specific people's reactions and suchlike, but when we are delivering factual information, we simply do not do this. It is a violation of WP:NPOV. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that our article on Adolf Hitler doesn't include any mention of the historical consensus about his regime in the lede paragraph is a spectacular failure. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about providing its opinion on things. It is not about presenting majority opinions on things. Wikipedia is impartial. Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view. We use reliable sources to convey information about the world around us, but we avoid letting the bias in those sources into the articles. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to spread propaganda. You seem to be confused about what Wikipedia is. The article on Hitler doesn't need to describe him as evil, nor should it, nor is it our place to call him such; it is our place to present information about the world. It doesn't matter if Hitler, Zoe Quinn, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, or Pope Benedict the Sixteenth are "good" or "evil"; if we are doing our job, the article should allow the reader to come to any such conclusions on their own. If we aren't, if we misguide the reader, then we have failed.

You don't seem to understand this, but it is a vital part of being a neutral source of information. It is why Wikipedia is great. If you don't like that, there are other places, like Liberapedia or Conservapedia, where such POV pushing is accepted, even welcomed. Wikipedia tries to be neutral. It is one of our central pillars. We don't pass judgement on things. It is our job to present information as neutrally and in as balanced a manner as possible, while avoiding bias. If you want, you can create a page on liberapedia about Zoe Quinn and rant about how awful it is all day long, and then get in a yelling match with someone over censorship when they paint her as the devil. But that is not what Wikipedia is about. It is our job to help the reader understand what is going on, what happened, all that. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT "impartial" in presenting all sides as equal as they wish to be presented. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, it's "biased" to describe the harassment of Zoe Quinn but "neutral" to describe her sex life. Got it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it is only two words pulled from the article, and the way it looks, may of been pulled for the exact negative connotation that it Virulent would show. Since it isn't a quote that provides any real context, it could be replaced with a more neutral, unquoted descriptor. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

when attacks are virulent, expect them to be called virulent. WP:NPOV -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Unnecessarily complex article naming

I can understand why this article was originally created at GamerGate. That styling is often used, and the name gamergate is already occupied by an article on entomology. One other aspect of the naming puzzles me: the hatnote that says the article should really be called "#GamerGate".

This seems unnecessarily complex and slightly misleading, and as far as I recall it's not in accordance with our disambiguation guideline.

The article isn't about a hashtag, so we don't need the hatnote. The capitalisation also varies and reliable sources on the topic have referred to it as GamerGate, Gamergate, Gamer Gate and perhaps even more.

For these reasons I suggest that we move the article to "Gamergate (video game controversy)", or possibly "Gamergate" with a corresponding move to "Gamergate (ant)" for the other article. --TS 01:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

your gamergant (ant) is not gonna happen, this flash in the pan niche use has nothing in comparison to the long established and widespread scientific use. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that calling it by the hashtag is not really the best, and agree that MOS for naming would have it at a disambiguated title. But there's no need to move the ant article for this to happen. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the original gamergate article is in the right place already. I offered it for discussion in the interests of completeness. --TS 02:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

CamelCasing and pointing out that it's technically impossible to have the hash mark in the article title are not pressing issues.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

As a note, nearly every other -gate issue is not camelcase, even in cases where the original "somethinggate" word was not a real one. --MASEM (t) 02:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• support move to Gamergate (video game controversy) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

As there seems to be clear support for this article at a standard disambiguation name I've gone ahead and performed the move. I also removed the hatnote (which nobody seemed to think necessary) and clarified the nomenclature in the opening sentence. Please improve. --TS 14:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we have the archive bot lay off?

The archive bot is archiving stuff after only 1 day. That's hardly any time at all. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Based on how active this page has been, 1 day was needed because every Redditor and /v/irgin with a grudge came here and you kept making new threads on the exact same shit in the same day.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, given that people keep claiming that changing the article is "against consensus", and yet we have tons of people noting that the page is biased and has NPOV issues, well, I think that the consensus is very clear. However, the fact that people post here frequently does not mean we need to archive so quickly; you've archived my sources section twice already because it doesn't get updated every day within 24 hours. Also, please be WP:CIVIL and don't WP:BITE the newbies. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The only people that keep coming here claiming that there's a bias and it's not neutral are those who don't know our policies. And frankly you're wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there are dozens of sources which say otherwise. Please look at the source list. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That is your opinion, which as we have seen, falls into a loud yet distinct minority here. Tarc (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

What does it matter? You wanted sources, you've got sources. Or somehow your sources are better because they agree with you?

I thought abusive and offensive participants will be censored. So is written in the top of the article. Or is it OK if they support the white knight army of people who ignore evidence?Capilleary (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Someone changed the archive bot to two days but didn't change the archive notice; I've fixed that. If you don't know how to change all the parameters, please ask. Dreadstar ☥ 22:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources

There is an archived source list here, because the bot is going crazy.

Cinemablend had an article noting support for GamerGate amongst game developers, as well as noting a past case of demonization of a game developer by the gaming press because of allegations made against him which were later found to be unfounded in court. It also made note of the opinion that anti-GamerGate people engaging in harassment and being okay with harassment, so long as it was themselves doing it. It also noted Ben Kuchera declining to interview someone who he had set up an interview with because of the GamerGate thing. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Newsweek noted Asssange spoke out against censorship while on Reddit, but the article, while it mentions #GamerGate, is somewhat unclear about it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Urban Fifth wrote an article some time ago (back in August) noting some of the allegations made by InternetAristocrat. The article is not very kind to her. I've never heard of them; I dunno how reliable they are. They seem to be some sort of random news site, but they also seem... sparse. And possibly dead, as their latest article was on August 28th. Titanium Dragon (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

DDOS Attack on The Escapist GamerGate Discussion Thread

Bright Side of News reported on the attack on the Escapist.

Forbes talks about both the DDOS attack on the Escapist as well as mentioning the leaked journalist emails, as well as general censorship on the topic.

Gamer Headlines also talked about the DDOS attack on The Escapist.

Game Politics notes the DDOS attack on The Escapist, in addition to other sites which also were DDOSed today. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Random DDOS attacks are not the subject of the article, unfortunately. Tarc (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you read it? It is specifically a DDOS targeting the GamerGate thread on The Escapist. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it is directly related to GamerGate. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The articles link it directly to GamerGate and censorship thereof, as usual. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The target itself, unpredictably, surmises. The others parrot the surmising. Tarc (talk) 04:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

They do no such thing. Rather, the two sources that make accusations use a bucketload of weasel words to suggest a connection, for which they cannot provide a single scrap of evidence.

You want to talk about journalism ethics, there's a bunch of journalistic ethics violations — speculative suggestive rumormongering of the classic passive voice refusal-to-take-responsibility-for-your-writing "well, gee, someone speculated this... I'm not saying who did it, I'm not saying it's right or it's wrong, just throwing it out there..." form.

• Bright Side of News: There has been speculation that the DDoS may have been caused by anti-GamerGate activists, and that this attack may be a retaliation to the recently unearthed evidence of collusion within the games journalism scene. E-mail messages taken from Games Journo Pros, a private Google Group used by big-name games writers, further supports this theory. — They're not saying who is doing the speculation and they're disclaiming doing the speculation themselves... and the linked e-mails literally do not support the theory because they say nothing about any DDoS attack.
• Forbes: At this point there is no information of the perpetrator of the attack though The Escapist is working to find out. The timing of the attack, following the revelations in the GameJournoPros emails, does raise questions. — That is literally the dictionary definition of a weasel-worded accusation.
• Game Politics and Gamer Headlines do the responsible thing and don't make any accusations or attempts to link anything to anyone without evidence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, its better than Zoe Quinn and her supporters claiming it is all misogyny. Definitely no conflict of interest there. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been reading this convo and I'm very slightly confused as to what is going on. Are people saying that if this DDoS is included in this article, no accusations should be made regarding who's behind it [i agree with this], or that the DDoS shouldnt be reported on at all? Regardless of who did the DDoS, the fact that it's the DDoS of a Gamergate discussion board, that's been covered by multiple reliable sources, surely warrants it a place in this article. Just as the hacking of the TFYC indiegogo [with of course no accusations regarding who is behind it], has been given a place in this article, the DDoS of Escapist magazine is warranted a mention. But is anyone actually arguing for zero mention of the Escapist DDoS or have I just been arguing against my own personal strawman? Bosstopher (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

So now the owners of the article say this has nothing to do with GamerGate when the founder of the site himself, quoted by Forbes, states it was targeted at the #GamerGate forum, and The Escapist being the only site left who let people discuss about it. The freaking title of the Forbes article is "The Escapist #GamerGate Forums Brought Down In DDoS Attack" and all of the sources relate the matters. I'm surprised every day at what you guys get away with, Titanium Dragon is all up by himself to make the article NEUTRAL, no, we don't want to delete all mentions of misygony and harassment, but reading this seems like one day people were bored and decided to harass a random woman when no source says that Loganmac (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Just becuase the GG forum was the target of the DDOS doesn't mean it is related to GG. Likely? Yes, but to assume so is original research and speculation. --MASEM (t) 19:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Surely it's related to GG insofar as the topic being covered is a GG forum? Who is doing the DDoS is irrelevant. See the comparison I made above to the mention of TFYC's indiegogo being compromised. Bosstopher (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thats like saying "We are doing a story about Toyota Breaks recall - here's a story of a toyota that was stolen and crashed. surely its related." particularly when there is only one reliable mainstream source that mentions it. WP:UNDUE coverage of conspiracy theories. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ethics policy changes

The Escapist, Destructoid, Destructoid on themselves, Polygon, and Kotaku all changed their ethics policies as a result of the controversy. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

NPOV tag

EDIT: There is a dispute noticeboard resolution topic about this already, and was even before I added the NPOV tag. It should have been there already. Original post follows. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I added this tag because it is necessary. Given the number of disputes on this, it needs to go up. It is time to deal with this.

The issues are:

• Right now, the page is pushing very heavily for Zoe Quinn and her supporters (including several members of the press) point of view.
• Zoe Quinn and her supporters are not properly discussed; they have a history of harasssment of others, and engaged in harassment of others during the course of this.
• WP:UNDUE is given to Zoe Quinn and harassment issues centering on her; there are a great number of sources which note censorship of the GamerGate folks, harassment of GamerGate supporters, harassment of people by Zoe Quinn, collusion amongst journalists to suppress the story, ect. and this is not really covered properly at all.
• The intro, as noted above, is problematic; we've been discussing this, but the problem is that fundamentally it is about a wide variety of things, and instead it is noted as being primarily about misogyny, despite the fact that numerous sources claim otherwise and that the primary person who does is Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, and people who have interviewed those two. It hardly focuses at all on the accusations of the gamergaters despite this, ostensibly, being something that they brought up.
• We are citing sources as factual which are probably not reliable sources in this case due to WP:RS and WP:BIASED and conflict of interest issues.

Additionally, we've had issues with people biting newbies, trying to intimidate people, deleting discussions from the talk page, improperly archiving discussions, and of course all the fun breaches of WP:CIVIL.

A very large number of folks have come by to note that the article is biased and suffers from NPOV problems and have been shouted down by a small number of users. This behavior needs to cease and desist immediately.

The consensus of a large number of folks has been that this page is biased and has NPOV problems. We need to fix it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop making new threads about this. Stop claiming that the page isn't neutral. You just keep repeating the same fucking arguments over and over, claiming that it's not neutral because it focuses on one aspect of the topic. This is all there is in the media to discuss this subject. No reliable sources out there suggest that the aspects you want to downplay or frankly whitewash are not the major aspect and this page should instead focus on something else. You need to be topic banned from this article, as does Torga, PseudoSomething, Honestyislebestpolicy, and IAmJohnny5 or whatever. This has been going on for far too long. You can't keep stymying this page to get your way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

A large number consisting of you, and...who? Sockpuppets, meatpuppets, and single-purpose accounts? Between you and all the redlink-named accounts, the Oversight Team has had to erase dozens of edits in the past 2 weeks or so. Your opinions are without merit and your (all of you) presence here is a collective and complete net negative to this project. Tarc (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the overwhelming consensus is against you - there have been well over a dozen users who have noted that this page has POV issues. I'm sorry, but your repeated attempts to claim that there are no problems with the article are disruptive. I have, repeatedly, linked to the sources on this page; they are there for you to see. I have asked you to read them before; you, apparently, have chosen not to do so. The sources do not agree with you; there are some sources which do, but unfortunately they are all WP:BIASED and, well, that's the issue; the folks who look at it from a further distance have noted that it is not about misogyny, and indeed, we've had folks as far away as Taiwan say as much. Forbes has noted the issue repeatedly, and the Telegraph also discusses that the GamerGaters completely contradict the story Zoe Quinn has tried to propagate. There are a great number of sources, from Bright Side of News to The Escapist, which have noted the controversy as being about integrity in journalism, and several websites have changed their codes of ethics as a result of the controversy. I understand you have a point of view, but this is not the appropriate place to advocate for it. Our job here is to write a neutral article.

I count only four folks who agree with you. This ends now. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Legitmate, unresolved NPOV dispute. The lead, events and a number of other things unfairly represent living people. Listen, instead of shouting down and hatting will fix it. --DHeyward (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@DHeyward: There is a dispute resolution noticeboard topic about this very issue, which I only found because I've been going through some folks' user pages. All of the people above have already commented on it, previous to this point, so they were aware of this issue. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not been assigned/opened yet. No point in commenting until them. There is a legitimate NPOV dispute involving living though and that should not be removed. The amount of discussion is evidence of that. --DHeyward (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I see. I really have no understanding of these formal Wiki processes; I've been here for ages, but have mostly managed to avoid anything really nasty until very recently (when I got doxxed for editing this article). I'm sad that I can't say that anymore, because it hasn't been one ounce of fun. I'm sorry if I did something wrong by adding a comment there, but I felt like it was a bit odd that I wasn't named/involved, seeing as I've been involved in this since it became notable. :/ Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no unresolved NPOV dispute. Just two people who keep crying "IT'S NOT NEUTRAL" over and over again because they think the article pays too much attention to the only point of view that can ever be reliably sourced or that they want to entirely downplay and/or whitewash a major aspect of the event because it portrays one side in a negative light. That negative light being the fact that a vocal portion of the video gaming community spent days sending threatening messages to semi-prominent women because of an ex-boyfriend's laying out of dirty laundry.

The majority of people on this page are fucking sick and tired of listening to Titanium Dragon and other editors constantly whinge that mentioning that people have been severely harassed and threatened over what was proved to be nothing makes the page biased because it doesn't focus on what the minority voice in the debate wants to have this subject be known for, and that is an investigation into conflicts of interest between game developers and the online gaming press. Just because the article discusses the fact that two women were driven out of their homes, multiple people quit their life's works, and several websites had been hacked on both sides of the debate makes this article biased according to Titanium Dragon, et al.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Forbes, Telegraph, Bright Side of News, Digitimes, even Slate, among numerous other sources, note that the controversy is about the games journalism industry and integrity in the gaming industry (as well as bullying of gamers by the media, the presentation of social issues in games media, and other things – it is very multifaceted).

The Escapist, Destructoid, Polygon, and Kotaku all updated their ethics policies in light of the controversy.

This has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

Not to mention you yourself have noted how many folks have come here to complain about the POV problems, and how you were archiving things daily to eliminate said threads.

Only four of you claim it is okay. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

But they don't say it is the only reason, and it is the second reason they list after speaking about the misogymy. They clearly put it as a secondary reason for this. (Also, we are never going to use brightsideofnews as a source, nowhere close to reliable, so stick to the other ones). --MASEM (t) 13:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I can quote an even longer list of indisputably-reliable mainstream sources that focus on the harassment. Time, the Los Angeles Times, The Week, NPR Marketplace, The Telegraph ("Misogyny, death threats and a mob of angry trolls" is the article headline), The New Yorker, The Washington Post, The Washington Post again, Vox, The Indian Express, The Verge, The Independent, TechCrunch, Asian Age, Recode, The Herald Sun, and now The Boston Globe and The New York Times. And this is without even mentioning less-mainstream sources like Paste, The Mary Sue, The Raw Story, etc. Do you want me to stop, because I can find more?

It is literally indisputable that the overwhelming majority of mainstream reliable sources focus their coverage on the harassment issue. You cannot dismiss every single mainstream reliable source as somehow "biased" or part of some vast media conspiracy. You cling to CinemaBlend and Forbes because they're literally the only thing remotely close to mainstream that supports your position. It is simply not credible and not supported by policy to argue that those two sources can override the literal dozens of mainstream published sources which hold a differing POV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong: You have repeatedly falsely claim that there is no coverage on this, despite multiple people linking to or talking about this stuff, and that there is a consensus that it is all about misogyny.

As well as getting angry when Newsweek noted Assange's reaction to Gamergate.

According to my count, we have @EvilConker:, @Torga:, @62.243.82.158:, @70.24.5.2040:, @91.74.219.237:, @Pretendus:, @PseudoSomething:, @MyMoloboaccount:, @The Devil's Advocate:, @76.27.230.7:, @2601:7:A80:3E:588A:4C92:F7AF:E8A1:, @78.27.93.124:, @Willhesucceed:, @Hanchen:, @Diego Moya:, @Honestyislebestpolicy:, @71.178.64.248:, @67.165.142.226:, @Tutelary:, and @Ilovetopaint:, at least, have noted that the article has NPOV issues and is slanted towards Zoe Quinn and uses questionable sources and makes questionable statements.

You've got @Kaldari:, @Tarc:, yourself, @NorthBySouthBaranof:, and @TheRedPenOfDoom: who claim that it is totally fine. And who have repeatedly yelled at people about how this has all already been decided and it is totally in the RSs, really.

The majority of users who come through here express dismay at the state of the article or statements made in it. That's bad, yo. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

As most of those are new or IP users, they don't likely have a good understanding of what we are bound by. There's a neutral article, one that would cover both sides equally (read both positive and negative) but that would require use of unusable sources (eg blogs, 4chan boards, twitter posts), and there's a WP-neutral article that covers the event as fairly as possible using the reliable sources. The latter will never be as neutral as the former because media (non-video game related solely) are going to have a hard time justifying any sympathy for a side that has engaged in harassment tactics, and where there is difficulty in knowing exactly what is there due to a lack of a single or solidified voice. So we're not going to get as much positive coverage on that side as we'd like. But at the same time, we can avoid excessive "praise" of the journalist/dev side that there is a bit of in the same media reports, to avoid imbalancing the article further. (This is why I don't think we need to have any further reaction from Quinn in this because it villainizes the harassment even more , which that's already apparent and goes without saying).

So until the media change the story about Gamergate and focus it on a movement (not just in a few sources but pretty much across the board), our hands our tied with how this article can be written to WP's policies. It is somewhat unfair to the gamer side, I understand but at the same time, it speaks volumes that the way to create discussion that the media will cover is not by random actions but a unified message that has been lacking on the GG side; the press will take that side more seriously if they get their act together to present their aims in a calm, rational manner. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

All in that list save molobo, TDA, and diego are SPAs, who are summarily ignored. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I oppose whitewashing the article to downplay the harassment campaign. GamerGate, as the reliable sources make clear, was essentially a manufactured controversy allowing people to target game developers the community already had a beef with. It's pretty transparent who the POV-pushers are in this debate. If we wanted to make the article accurately reflect the majority of reliable sources, it wouldn't even mention the "ethics" issues in the lead. Kaldari (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thats actually incorrect. We have a large amount of sources that talks about Ethics and Corruption in gaming Journalism. What you would be doing is pushing a POV. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

uhh, no. we have a few sources that say "harassment harassment harassment and oh, yeah, there is also this" but absolutely no reliable sources that say "here is the gamergate manifesto (and oh there is this harassment thing that got tagged on) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes we do, and as you continuously say when you try to shut down conversation, go look at the past discussions. Those sources have been provided over and over and over. It is obvious what you are trying to do here, and it is getting annoying. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

no one has ever provided mainstream reliable sources that are not "harassment harassment harassment and oh, yeah, there is also this" no one has provided any reliable mainstream sources that are ""here is the gamergate manifesto (and oh there is this harassment thing that got tagged on)". no one has even been able to provide "here is the gamergater's manifesto" period. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

New material, pro-GamerGate source

http://www.viralglobalnews.com/technology/gamergate-anita-sarkeesian-video-games-journalism-time-change/17327/

This article takes a broader view, and focuses much more on the concerns of gamers. It points out that this has been a long time coming. It points out that coverage of the topic has been very one-sided. It points out that the very outlets which are being criticised are of course manipulating the way they're reporting on the topic. It points out how Anita is treated with kid gloves, and that this has stifled debate and discussion, which has made people angry. It points that the fact that certain outlets changed their policies during GamerGate means that there are legitimate concerns. It points out the unfortunate way gaming media have treated their audience. It mentions that the reporting on the topic has become an echo chamber of parrots. Most notably, it references a video interview, which happened as a result of Gamergate, with Greg Lisby, a lawyer and ethics researcher who's also the Associate Chair of the Department of Communications at Georgie State University, who states that there are ethical concerns when journalists are friends with their subjects, sleep with their subjects, and/or give money to the people they're supposed to report on.

Willhesucceed (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a chance. This isn't anywhere close to being a reliable source. On the same day, they published an article titled "ISIS Created by the United States and Other Conspiracy Theories" based on Facebook posts and asked readers to chime in with their own theories. Woodroar (talk) 09:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually that's a pretty well written piece about conspiracy theories with official responses. Plenty of mainstream sources published pieces on conspiracy theories that the journalists weren't beheaded. That article provides facebook posts from the U.S. Embassy and other places to both highlight the CT and refute it. It's pretty neutral if only the headline grabbed your attention. Apparently you are unaware that these theories are widely circulate in the middle east. If you think referencing this facebook post [1] invalidates them as a source, you may want to rethink your criteria. It's also in the editorial section. --DHeyward (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't characterize the article as refuting anything. The section opens with a detailed Facebook status pushing the theory, there's a short US Embassy status generally denying everything, and it ends by saying pro-theory YouTube videos are out there. The claims in the beheading video section aren't refuted at all, and they go one step further by making allegations about the reporter. Editorial or not, it's a terrible source. Woodroar (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This is several notches below even The Raw Story, a link to which was generally considered not reliable in earlier discussions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Eventually we (well, people other than me; I have no interest in a debate that will end inevitably) are going to have to talk about how the reliable sources have largely been incompetent. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

So Gawker media and Buzzfeed are reliable, as well as a heavily editorialised Independent article being cited and quoted in the Events section, but whenever a source questions goes against the bias of the WP article, it shouldn't be included? Surely that's at least a little against WP:RS. Tempo River (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

"Virulent Campaign" not being a violation of WP:NPOV

Is there a specific part of NPOV that backs up your point NorthBySouthBaranof? I assume it has something to do with with the fact that is has been quoted by a source, correct? --86.140.193.228 (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

We have gone over this fifty god damn times on this page already. "Virulent campaign" is explicitly mentioned in one of the sources cited. Go look it up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

As was noted, it is a clear WP:NPOV violation. Here we can even see user:NorthBySouthBaranof agreeing with me. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That was 2 weeks ago and you should know consensus can change. There is a thread above where NorthBySouthBaranof is clearly showing a changed opinion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Reliable sources have described the campaign of harassment as, variously, a "virulent campaign," a "cavalcade of threats," a "flood of threats," "reams of appalling threats and abuse online," "unprecedented levels of death threats and harassment," "nothing short of an online form of terrorism," etc. Take your pick if you prefer a different descriptor than "virulent." There are no reliable sources which contest the idea that the harassment was of such a character.

And no, TitaniumDragon, I'm not "agreeing with you" in that diff. In that diff, I removed POV statements which were not uncontested or uncontroversial such as the in-Wikipedia-voice statement that supporters of left-wing ideology (are) called "Social Justice Warriors". That is a clearly-controversial claim which applies a pejorative term to a group of people and was not supported by any reliable sources, much less being uncontested and uncontroversial fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NBSB, the text of the guideline continues "...unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information". This incident is being reported by all reliable sources as a controversy, so we should follow the order "to describe disputes, but not engage in them", and attributing loaded terms to the people making them. It is not an uncontestable fact that there's "harassment" - many people have contested it; even it they're not reliable sources, they've been identified by RSs as part of the controversy. It's uncontestable that the people at the center of the controversy have been receiving rude personal attacks, death threats and so, which reliable sources have described using the word "harassment".

So let's follow what the policy actually says and describe what has happened, but attribute subjective terms to the people that used them; what must appear in Wikipedia voice is the factual description of those attacks and threats that these people received. So let's follow what the policy actually says. Diego (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it is entirely uncontroversial and uncontested that the harassment happened and that it was of such a character. If you want to use another set of the descriptors, take your pick. I like "online form of terrorism" myself.

"Uncontested" and "uncontroversial" does not mean "something literally nobody has ever contested." Otherwise, we couldn't even say "The Earth is round." Helpfully, we have another policy that allows us to effectively ignore theories and ideas that are held by virtually nobody. The idea that there was no harassment of Zoe Quinn is a fringe theory worthy of absolutely not a single shred of consideration in this or any other article. As WP:DUE states, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Further, Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. The fact that someone, somewhere on Twitter said that the harassment didn't happen simply doesn't even merit our consideration. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, can you please calm down and read what I actually write? Ok, here it's difficult because I lost half my post in an edit conflict badly corrected, but I'll try to make it clear again in the following. For a start I'm specifically *not* claiming that there was no harassment, nor that the article should state such in any way. What I'm defending is that WP:NPOV was carefully crafted to achieve the optimal result, and you're doing it a disservice if you try to adopt the POV of the majority of RSs as the official Wikipedia POV (which is the approach you have stated as your goal to adopt). This is simply not how articles must be written, and the opposite of what policy states in spirit and letter. The whole point of NPOV is that, if you follow it, you don't *need* to adopt the POV of the majority to convey it as the most significant one, because it will defend itself by the amount of references documented in a neutral and dispassionate wording. Please try to understand this before engaging in further details about the content here, because you don't have a good record in crafting the optimum wording with respect to neutrality. Diego (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Earlier, I removed the word "tirade" quotes and all because it introduced an unnecessary value judgement. I left the word "virulent" because I felt it clarified that it was not an isolated campaign by a singular crank. I can launch a campaign, but it isn't virulent unless others join in. I removed the quotes, if you quote isolated words and phrases, they look like scare quotes and call into question the validity of the quoted material. For example, Jenn Frank's Guardian piece uses them a lot. - hahnchen 12:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it clarifies it at all; the primary definition is "full of hate", and there are multiple other definitions, but I don't think it is mostly an appropriate word to use; it has too many very negative connotations, seeing as the word comes from the spread of disease - the root of the word is poison, after all. I felt like "campaign of harassment" did a good enough job of indicating it is more than one person, though that itself is semi-problematic in that it implies it was a very large number (campaigns, like military campaigns, are big things); we really have no idea how many people actually harassed Zoe Quinn. It might be better to entirely reword it. I mean, what is wrong with saying that Quinn and her family were harassed, or became the target of harassment from people online? Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I confused virulent with viral. It should be clear from the death threats that the campaign was virulent, and so the term isn't really necessary. - hahnchen 18:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You dont think its "full of hate" to orchestrate and participate in a campaign rape and death threats against people and their families who even if the worst allegations were true got a good review for their game?????? that is not only virulent, thats sociopathic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't call Adolf Hitler evil inline, either, and we don't do it for the same reason. Titanium Dragon (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you think that's the worst of the accusations, you haven't been watching this stuff very closely. <redacted> details a couple of the more serious ones, but I have no intention of using them for the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Erm, I was going to suggest that we add a citation next to the quote "virulent campaign" (citation 7, the source where it came from) so that people know that is a quote. But I had to leave before I could add that in. And anyway, isn't putting citations next to quotes a Wiki-policy? At least, that's what I've seen around here. --86.140.193.228 (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is just a pair of words taken from an article that gives next to no context for any situation, and is being used to add a negative descriptor to the article without directly stating it. It can be replaced easily. PseudoSomething (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

But it won't be, as it is a quote from a reliable source. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

So... Can we add a citation next to the quote "virulent campaign" without people getting angry/insta-revert? --86.140.193.228 (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It already is, "Quinn and her family were subsequently targeted by a "virulent campaign" of harassment...", cited to the WPost, Daily Dot, and the Daily Beast. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Only the Washington Post calls the campaign "virulent", Dailydot calls it a "sustained campaign", and the Daily Beast just calls it a "harassment campaign". What I want to do is move/add the citation for the Washington Post article after the quote "virulent campaign" so that people know that it was specifically the Washington Post that said that and it wasn't a phrase repeated by the other sources.

I'm sorry that this is causing so many problems, I just saw something which seemed like it could be fixed with what I thought I knew about Wikipedia i.e. put citations after quotes. But it seems like I just made the whole thing worse. Sorry. --86.140.193.228 (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I read the article and those words jumped out at me as not being Wikipedia's voice, even with the quotes. We give enough examples to make the nature of the campaign clear. Seeing that my concern is echoed here, I have changed the text. It would perhaps be OK to say "subject to what the Washington Post called a 'virulent campaign'..." but we would still have picked that over "sustained" and "harassment". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC).

And I have reinstated it with in-text citation. If you prefer a different quote there, such as a "cavalcade of threats," a "flood of threats," "reams of appalling threats and abuse online," "unprecedented levels of death threats and harassment," "nothing short of an online form of terrorism," "poisonous abuse," "a torrent of unfathomable outrage," "a horrible rain of rape threats," "a vicious and ugly online backlash," "a wave of rape and death threats," etc. let's discuss that. All of the above are reliably-sourced. The reliable sources are effectively unanimous in describing what happened to Quinn in the strongest possible terms. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable or questionable sources

• The Time magazine article by Leigh Alexander is problematic due to conflict of interest reasons; it fails WP:RS because Alexander is an employee of Kotaku, one of the primary targets of the controversy, and she works in both PR for video game developers and as a games journalist, which is precisely the sort of thing that the controversy is about - the conflict of interest that comes when people are working both as part of a PR machine and doing reporting. It is usable for what Leigh Alexander had to say, but it is not usable for talking about facts, and even then, I'm leery of using it.

• The New Yorker article by Simon Parker is problematic. While there are peripheral conflict of interest concerns (and he hid his patreon after folks online noted that he was donating to someone who was very anti GamerGate), the real problem with this article is that it doesn't really show a whole lot of signs of fact checking; it seems to rely very heavily on Zoe Quinn's opinion about everything, and makes the declarative judgement:
  • In Quinn’s case, the fact that she was the subject of the attacks rather than the friend who wrote about her game reveals the true nature of much of the criticism: a pretense to make further harassment of women in the industry permissible.

As well as the factually inaccurate statement that the debate dissipated (it hasn't). It also quotes Quinn as saying that she feels sympathy for her attackers, which, well, isn't really in accord with her behavior elsewhere (which apparently they didn't bother to check), but that is neither here nor there.

• The article cited about Zoe Quinn's original late 2013 harassment by The Escapist has since had the note that it was not fact checked and was just repeating what Zoe Quinn claimed. In light of evidence that she was not harassed by Wizardchan as she claimed, The Escapist changed their policy about not fact-checking claims of harassment and added the disclaimer to the article that it had never been verified. This is really problematic as it is the source of all these claims, and they're now noting that the only source on it was Quinn herself.

• The Daily Beast's "Gaming Misogyny Gets Infinite Lives" article is problematic for fairly obvious reasons of bias. The problem is, again, they have an agenda (gamers are misogynistic!) and, well, the article is written to support that idea. I'm not fond of using this to source factual statements.

• This ars technica article is used to source that Adam Baldwin was the originator of the #GamerGate tag, but A) does not in fact say that and B) thusly, isn't accurate (as it claims that he picked up on it, when in fact he was the originator). We need to use another source for Adam Baldwin, and I'd recommend cutting it out entirely.

• I think this is an opinion article and it is pretty nasty. I'm not sure that this is the best source to cite a description of Vivian James, which is what it is being used for currently.

Problematic sources

• The Kotaku post about Grayson is problematic because it is being made by a party who is being accused of impropriety. It isn't that we shouldn't use it so much as that we need to use it with care, because it is the source of all the claims that there is nothing to the Grayson conflict of interest story, but they have a vested interest in not being seen as corrupt. Notably, they also changed their ethics policy. Titanium Dragon (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Once someone starts trying to say that Time Magazine, a 90+ year-old institution, is unreliable, they have lost the argument. Tarc (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Once someone says a single article is not reliable because of the author, they have a brain and realize that occasionally Time Magazine can be pretty biased. --DHeyward (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Alleged bias isn't a concern; whether or not a source has editorial control and is reputed for fact-checking and accuracy is. That is what separates the angry bloggers form legitimate journalism. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Alleged bias is absolutely a concern for BLPs. That's why the Time Magazines picture of OJ Simpson isn't used. They had full editorial control. We don't and wouldn't use it because it's biased. Same with single articles that are biased. Our BLP policy doesn't allow biased content regardless of sourcing - that is pretty much Jimbo's quote. If anything it should not be covered rather than covered with bias because our sourcing policy doesn't allow other voices. We have brains and discretion to read all sources and decide if content belongs regardless of whether it was written about or who wrote it. The ex-BF that triggered all of this is not a gamer, a misogynist, a sexist nor a journalist. The article shouldn't read as if he is. The vast majority of gamers are not sexist or misogynist either. We are allowed to make decisions on content inclusion based on the full set of data available, including primary sources, and if that means we skip certain views because of bias or conflict with primary sources, so be it. It's better to have nothing, than to have one side and claim the other side can't be stated because of sourcing policy. It stands WP:BLP on it's head to do this. --DHeyward (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we do use Time's picture, to illustrate People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson. There doesn't appear to be any discussion on that article's talk page objecting to their use.

We do not state that the ex-boyfriend is any of those above things. Instead, we state that what the ex-boyfriend released ignited a firestorm of misogynistic and sexist harassment directed at Zoe Quinn. This is an indisputable fact supported by an overwhelming abundance of reliable sources, which have been repeatedly listed here and just as repeatedly ignored by those who wish to pretend otherwise. Claiming that every single one of those sources, from The Washington Post to the Pacific Standard to Asian Age to the PBS NewsHour is unusably biased is quite simply one of the most ludicrously-unsupportable arguments I have ever seen on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's policy on fringe theories not covered in reliable sources is clear, as are Jimbo's words, for whatever they're worth. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

The answer to your question, then, is not that we do not cover an issue with only one side represented in reliable sources - it is that we cover the issue as it is represented in reliable sources, period. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

TitaniumDragonPlease re-read WP:COI to understand conflict of interest better. Also saying sources are bias because they talk about something you do not like does not make them bias in the way you want or think. NathanWubs (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

So basically, every source you disagree with is unreliable because you don't like what it says or you claim it's inaccurate. Quite.

Moreover, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. They are merely required to be reliable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

As has been pointed out before, age has nothing to do with reliability. When a person directly involved in GamerGate, who has shown a clear anti-gamer agenda, is the one to write for Time, of course it should be considered an unreliable source. Leigh Alexander has an overwhelming vested interest in pushing an anti-GamerGate view. If a climate change denialist wrote for Time about global warming, the article's reliability would most certainly be called into question. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

your conspiracy theories are quite amusing. where however do you see "anti-gamergate"? there is "anti-harassment" but you claim that the harassment is not gamergate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

All the big gaming outlets are framing it as an issue of harassment. Because of course they would. This is par for the course: every time there's a big enough kerfuffle about ethics and professionalism, they tell their audience they're in the wrong. See Doritogate. Then bigger, actual news, outlets pick up on the ruckus, go to the big gaming websites, and run with that story. There've been a few who've done independent research, but not many. As I've written above, there needs to be a discussion soon about the incompetence of typically reliable media when it comes to fringe, subculture topics like this. Forbes' Erik Kain has done a generally good job of canvassing the issues, even if I disagree with him on some things. I suggest the article more closely reflect his understanding of the issues, since it's generally backed by all the smaller outlets who've actually put effort into researching this topic.Willhesucceed (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You are not helping yourself. the gamergaters are trying to frame it as "not harassment" because, of course they would. If everyone is framing it differently than the "gamergaters", than that is the way we frame it, WP:UNDUE.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

now if the gamergaters could point to a significant portion of their work to be denouncing the harassment , their claims of it not being harassment might be taken more seriously. but instead their loudest voices, as expressed here on this talk page by some people that I will not name, are "Ignore the harassment, Thats not important. listen to what I want to talk about" which merely plays into the meta-narrative that gamergate is 1) harassment and 2) a symbol of the sexist attitudes in the elevation of "honest game reviews" as a more important issue that should wipe out coverage of the harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

"everyone is framing it differently" That's not the case. There's been talk about the corruption concerns, but it's pushed to the sideline. That said, as I noted above, there are some reliable sources that give it as much weight as the harassment concerns. It also happens to be the focus in conveniently "unreliable" sources. That aside, it's not like gaming has a history of being treated fairly by mainstream press. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course thats the case. Every mainstream reliable source is framing it as harassment. only fringe and non reliable sources are framing it as anything else. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought we were supposed to be respectful of each other. Apparently that rule only applies to me. Thanks. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be respectful of other editors to read WP:UNDUE when it has been pointed out to them dozens of times and not open another whinge on "this isnt neutral because it doesnt focus on what the gamergaters want". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You continue to misunderstand the concern. The concern is that there's not enough focus on the issues that pro-"GamerGaters" have with the video game industry. Talk about misogyny and harassment all you want, but the other issues should be addressed, too. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly why editors have asked you to read WP:UNDUE. I'll break it down. You understand that we base our articles only on reliable sources, correct? And when there is a disagreement or balancing to be done, we write in proportion to those reliable sources, correct? So if side A has 10 sources and side B has 10 sources, we write equally, say 1 paragraph to 1 paragraph. And if it's 10 sources to 5 sources, we write 2 paragraphs to 1 paragraph. But we have a situation where it's numerous reliable sources to an unknown number of unreliable sources (which equals 0 reliable sources), so we portray only the side with reliable sources. In other words, we don't attempt to give the impression of a false balance, simply because there isn't one. Even if we grant that a few reliable sources are discussing the corruption angle, they're still in the extreme minority proportionally, so extreme that it's debatable that we should discuss them at all. This is exactly what we do with, for example, denial of climate change: there absolutely are a few reliable sources that deny climate change, but they're in such a tiny minority that we shouldn't even feel obligated to discuss it. I really hope this helps. Woodroar (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"This is exactly why editors have asked you to read WP:UNDUE." I have, and the article still seemed skewed to me. The revamped one that Devil's Advocate published seems to do a much better job of addressing all aspects, with due weight given--hey, misogyny and harassment even get entire subsections!--so I no longer (but probably will again as soon as protection is lifted and people undo all the good work done by him/her) have a problem with it. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

How many of these sources are problematic?

OK TitaniumDragon, let us know how each and every one of these sources is unreliable and problematic.

• The Los Angeles Times
• The Week
• NPR Marketplace
• The Telegraph
• The Telegraph again
• The Washington Post
• The Washington Post again
• Vox
• Vox again
• The Indian Express
• PC Magazine
• Business Insider
• The Verge
• The Daily Dot
• TechCrunch
• PBS NewsHour
• Asian Age
• Recode
• Wired
• Pacific Standard
• The Herald Sun
• The Boston Globe
• The New York Times

All of these are mainstream, reliable sources with significant publishing histories; none of them are from video-game-specific media outlets. I look forward to finding out how each and every one of those sources is unacceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Vox owns both The Verge and Polygon. Polygon is part of the controversy, and Vox has published articles in their defense. While they aren't a gaming-specific outlet, The Verge has published similar articles, mostly regarding Anita Sarkeesian. Many Vox outlets share writers and swap employees around. Articles by members of GameJournalPros or other group forums for members of the gaming press, members of DiGRA, and other groups, are likewise unreliable. Ultimately, the controversy is about established gaming media displaying only a single narrative and not airing opinions from the other side. So it's really not shocking, then, that several companies whose employees are involved in the controversy are allowing them to continue and in fact reinforcing their claims. The article should purge dubious sources from otherwise established websites. You can't write an article about how some people think media is corrupt and then only post opinions from the media being accused of those actions. It's imbalanced. 173.51.120.127 (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

All of that is just a matter of your own personal opinion, much the same as conservatives who bellyache over the "liberal media". The criteria; "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is what we go by. Tarc (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Uhh, what? The GameJournalPros list has several of these authors as members. They're literally involved in the controversy. A controversy about journalists cooperating to agree on a narrative. Including any of them is, frankly, insulting. They have a conflict of interest and their articles cannot be consider reliable for the purposes of this article. If this article is just going to be a continuation of their platform, since they're the only ones you seem to hold notable, then this article is worse than useless. It's clearly biased. Sorry, but ad hominem attacks like "this is conservative bellyaching" are irrelevant to the core issue, and you're just deflecting the very real criticism that most of the biased sources are what are propping up the anti-gamer narrative portrayed in the article. 173.51.120.127 (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. Please read WP:BIASED and WP:NPOV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"All of that is just a matter of your own personal opinion" The part about several companies being owned by the same parent company is an opinion? Vox own The Verge and Polygon. Jenn Frank is supported through Patreon by Quinn's PR. Lots of people writing about this topic on gaming sites support each other on Patreon. There's a clear financial stake in presenting this issue as anything other than corruption and incompetence in the gaming press, and that speaks directly to reliability. And if GamerGate isn't about ethics and professionalism concerns, then what the hell did The Escapist, Kotaku and Polygon change their policies for? Why did Kyle Orlund release an apology about the GameJournoPros list? Why did Liana Kerzner apologise on behalf of all gaming journalists? Why are former gaming press and game developers both past and present using the #GamerGate tag? Have all of these things happened in an alternate dimension? Willhesucceed (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

If all of the media is bias tainted and unreliable, then the subject fails WP:GNG and needs to be deleted since coverage by reliable sources is required. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you bother posting on this page if you're not willing to engage in good faith. Willhesucceed (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It is "your opinion" that what company is owned by another affects how we use reliable sources in this project, yes. (protip; it does not). Tarc (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you're bringing up Jenn Frank, Willhesucceed — there aren't any articles written by her in the above list of sources. What does she have to do with anything in this discussion? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

There can be no support found in any Wikipedia policy for the argument that "I think these sources are biased against my POV, therefore they cannot be used." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you people suggesting people who personally took "sides" in the argument can possibly be reliable sources? Because it is hilarious. 46.197.97.107 (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Titanium Dragon: Quoting WP:RS: "Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Read the policies. Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Obiviously, but this is not the case when it comes to the other side of the argument. This whole thing is plain silly. 46.197.97.107 (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC) ps. I am not Titanium Dragon46.197.97.107 (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI, it appears that, going forward, Titanium Dragon will be unable to participate in this topic. Tarc (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

he certainly better not claim he wasnt warned. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged this article as a "current event"

It does seem to be a current event. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 19:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That tag is for a breaking event like a hurricane where details and facts will be changing by the minute. Not the case here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

New interview with Adam Baldwin on his views about GamerGate.

http://apgnation.com/archives/2014/09/21/7462/sides-screen-adam-baldwin-talks-integrity-journalism-transparency-gamergate

"This is what we see in the GameJournoPro list of e-mails. That’s who they are; they are the vanguard elite. They consider themselves the masterminds, and they want to tell you basically how to think. So I’m opposed to that."

There are bunch of things that can be taken from this article.

I do the actor/games voice actor/site is citeable. 76.27.230.7 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

What precisely do you wish to add to the article? "http://apgnation.com/archives/2014/09/21/7462/sides-screen-adam-baldwin-talks-integrity-journalism-transparency-gamergate Adam Baldwin thinks journalists are corrupt" (ADAM BALDWIN: "interesting to me, which is journalistic ethics. And also the corruption that was going on, which has now come to light)"? "Adam Baldwin is against social justice" (ADAM BALDWIN: "the term social justice jumped out at me. Whenever I see the term social justice, I think injustice, because it’s not justice. ")? "Adam Baldwin has secret connections with journalist Milo Yiannopoulos" (APGNation: Recently, you started a radio show with tech Milo Yiannopoulos. ) "As a male, Adam Baldwins only blowback has been twits and not rape threats and harassment of his family" (ADAM BALDWIN: "I’ve received a lot of blowback on Twitter, but that is the extent of it.") ?- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay last one, I'll refrain from talking anymore, but whoever said following this talk page is slower but funnier then twitter was right. 46.197.97.107 (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This is what I came to the article (and now the talk page) to find out about. What are the GameJournoPro emails? What is/was their impact? It sounds more significant a lot if the material on GamerGate. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC).

Take with your usual breitbart grain of salt http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-journalism-elite the discussion about GG is extra hilarious with people still trying to call it a harassment campaign, anyway, anonymous coward away 46.197.97.107 (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I have been able to tell, the contents differ depending on which side you listen to. Pro-GGers say that this shows how corrupt gaming journalism has become with an example being made of how Ben Kuchera (someone from Kotaku) tried to tell Greg Tito (A guy from Escapist) to shut down a discussion on GamerGate anyway he could. Anti-GGers say that this is just smoke out of the pro-GGers ass, and is nothing more than friendly banter, an example being how they (the reporters who made up GameJournoPro) discussing whether they should support Zoe Quinn in light of her harassment and deciding not to since it might taint their objectivity.

Sorry for no sources. Most of it is off of twitters that I haven't saved. --86.140.193.228 (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary. I wonder if much of this "#GamerGate" is really stuff we should not be writing about yet. It seems very confused, and we risk both misinforming and making BLP violations - there is a lot of matter that should be subject to police investigations. I certainly do not have much more time to look into it. Possibly WP:NOTNEWS needs invoking. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC).

This is why the specific events of this - outside of the initial accusation and the various harassments that came out from that - get so much into the weeds that it does not make sense to try to document all those specifics, as it gets us to a level of a lot of finger-pointing or the like. The analysis of why we're here or how to go forward is reasonable to find more on and expand, for certain, but like in this case, how much of this GameJounroPro stuff will prove "significant" is hard to tell. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

As with the other apgnation interview, this is usable for sourcing Adam Baldwin's own general beliefs and ideas, but may not be used to source any claims about other identifiable people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

We should add this somewhere to quote Adam's views Loganmac (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Misogyny removal

I removed misogyny from the introduction because misogyny is a form of sexism so saying "sexism and misogyny" is unnecessary.

I request that if misogyny deserves especial focus to mention it distinctively (in which case "including misogyny" would be better phrasing) that this notability be supported by references.

References must support the idea that Misogyny is a "long-standing issue" to support adding it back.

I do see of the initial 5 references following the first (sorta run-on) sentence that two have 'misogyny' in the title:

1. September 3rd Misogyny or corruption in the gaming community?, a web-only article by an unidentified AlJazeera person, here are the 3 author-summarized mentions I can find of the term (the rest just being twitter quoting):
   1. Criticism of video games and gaming culture, for misogyny and other issues, is commonplace.
      • does not say commonplace for a long time, refers to frequency not duration
   2. Technology commentator Milo Yiannopoulos wrote at Breitbart that #GamerGate was the "widespread frustration from players that every blog out there seems more concerned with policing misogyny and 'transphobia' than reviewing the latest game releases"
      • Is talking about current blogging, not long-standing issues.
   3. An article on the entertainment site What Culture maintained that the hashtag is not about misogyny
      • Clearly not supporting it being a long-standing issue, instead objecting to a current accusation of it.
2. September 10th Misogyny, death threats and a mob of trolls by Radhika Sanghani of Telegraph UK.
   1. A quick glance at Twitter shows a number of misogynistic, sexist and pretty shocking comments coming under this hashtag.
      • Is discussing current trends, not long-standing issues.
   2. A number of GamerGate participants on Twitter all tell me the same thing – that GamerGate is not about sexism, misogyny or hating women at all.
      • Is discussing a current conversation, not long-standing issues, and is actually objecting to misogyny claims.
   3. Quinn, who has been receiving death threats for almost a month, thinks otherwise: “As someone who has been an outspoken feminist who makes weird artsy games about mental illness, I’m an easy target for them because I’m everything they hate. I think there’s been a background of hatred and misogyny in video games and now all this hatred is focused on me and other women.”
      • Is quoting a person who only got their game Greenlit last month, not qualified to comment on a 'background of misogyny' as a reliable reference.
   4. Sam Ovett tells me: “I’m a strong supporter of GamerGate, as I feel that certain ‘journalistic’ sites are insulting me purely for liking video games, and painting an entire group of people as white, bigoted misogynists. .. Gamergate supports women and it’s sad to see there are indeed some people that misogynistic that claim to follow ‘Gamergate’.
      • Is quoting a recent interview which does not support it being an ongoing issue.
   5. Her advice to them would be to “stop using a hashtag that originates in hatred and a misogynistic campaign .. she suggests they use another hashtag such as #GameEthics which raises those same issues without the misogyny
      • Simply referencing Quinn again, not actually supporting the idea of misogyny being a long-standing issue, Sanghani is neutral regarding judging the issues.

So I need some help here, guys who want to add 'misogyny is longstanding' type statements to the introductory sentence of this article: which article (please provide an excerpt) sources such a claim? I ask that you add a direct link to it after the word misogyny, should you revert my removal. Ranze (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

so now the al jazeera article which certain editors claimed over and over and over was evidence that gamergate was not merely harassment is no longer among the reliable sources because it clearly labels the issues as about misogyny . hmmmm -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not talking about whether or not Al Jazeera is a reliable source. I'm saying that this AJ article (reliable or not) does not contain any statements supporting misogyny being a "long standing issue" in the "gamer community". The unidentified reporter is summarizing current discussions about misogyny and did not state it had been a longstanding issue. Ranze (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

All five of those sources discuss misogyny and specifically include the word. Woodroar (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The complaints were specifically (as noted by sources) feminist supporters, and very few of the males that were at the center of this (eg Grayson). That's why misogyny is a key word. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The sentence does sound somewhat redundant though. Why not just use misogyny by itself then? (And just a BTW, with the anti-GG people reverting everything and trying to skew everything, I have stopped most of my efforts until the DNR. No use to try to make it better.) PseudoSomething (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sexism and misogyny are two very different, though related, issues. And sexism has been called out too in the industry (see my list below). --MASEM (t) 20:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps "sexism (especially misogyny)"? 20:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, they are too very different concepts. Misogyny is not simply a form of sexism. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Although they are different concepts, misogyny is definitely a form of sexism. Hating a gender is an extreme form of prejudice on the basis of gender. Ranze (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I do think "Sexism (including Misogyny)" would read much better, since the hatred of women does fall under sexism. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Wired UK , LA Times, BBC. And before GG: GDC 2014 presentation, (Eurogamer summary), Rock Paper Shotgun in 2013, CBC. No reason to remove the word as that's central to this. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Woodroar, using the word is not enough. This article claims misogyny is a long-standing issue in the gamer community. Discussing misogynistic accusations in 2014 is not the same as establishing it as being a long-standing issue.

I suggest you read HOW the word is being used. Let's take a look at the three which do not have it in the title:

1. August 20th sexist crusade to destroy game developer Zoe by Aja Romano of Daily Dot
   1. Trolling, sustained campaigns of harassment, intense vitriol, and a rhetoric on the part of the harassers of being conspired against by mainstream media—these are all familiar parts of the misogyny that various women in the gaming community have endured in recent years. (the only use of the word misogyny in the article)
      • The phrase "recent years" does not support the view of "long-standing issue", it's talking about a RECENT issue.
      • The phrase "the misogyny" in this page links to http://www.dailydot.com/tags/sexism-in-gaming providing no actual support for Romanjo's claim. Why is she qualified to assess misogyny when she can't even tell it apart from the wider topic of sexism?
2. August 31st Everyone Hates Each Other And I'm Really Tired by Pete Haas of CinemaBlend
   1. This list isn't exhaustive but already encompasses arguments about misogyny, professional responsibility, privacy, the direction of the gaming industry and copyright.
      • Only mentions that the topic is being discussed, not that it is a long-standing "issue"
   2. There are gamers who defend their hobby from misogyny while still acknowledging that the industry could be more inclusive.
      • Does not allege it to be a long-standing issue.
   3. The people you consider misogynists or social justice warriors aren't going anywhere, either.
      • Is addressing hypothetical labelling that readers might engage in regarding persons involved in current events, is not commenting on long-standing misogyny.
3. September 4th Closer Look At The Controversy Sweeping Video Games by Erik Kain of Forbes
   1. Game writers claimed that all cries of corruption in media were merely thin veils to give cover to what was, essentially, a misogynistic movement.
      • Is discussing the current "GamerGate" movement, not the "gamer community" movement.
   2. Terms like “misogynerd” and “SJW” help label opponents on either side of the aisle .. “Gross nerd” evolved quickly into “Misogynerd” which is a super convenient way to label a large and diverse group of people as both icky nerds and misogynists.
      • Is discussing current slang within the conflict, not ongoing gamer culture issues.
   3. there are plenty of true-blue misogynists polluting video games
      • Even supporting we take Kain as some sort of authority on the issue because Forbes lets him write, there is nothing in this statement to indicate that this is a "long-standing" pollution.
   4. What I come away with here is not “feminist bullies” destroying the industry or “misogynistic neckbeards” out to scare away all the women.
      • Particularly when Kain provides neutral interpretations like this, actually supporting the opposite viewpoint: that misogyny is not what he comes away seeing.
   5. #GamerGate isn’t about conspiracies. It isn’t about scandal and corruption. It isn’t about feminists or misogynists.

And that there is the final occurance of the term. I have now broken down all 5 articles listed as references after the initial sentence in this article, and not a single one actually supports the declaration that misogyny is a long-standing issue in gamer culture. If this claim stays, it should be properly referenced, and it isn't. Ranze (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Dot ref links to another Daily Dot article on misogyny going back to 2005. The Forbes ref also touches on issues caused by the industry being male-driven from the start. It also calls the industry "young", something that is casually mentioned everywhere, and which I think confuses things: if we think of video games as this recent invention, then of course everything related to video games will be "recent". But your "recent" is not necessarily my "recent". If you consider the first "Cathode ray tube amusement device" as a video game, then video games predate most of us. I was born in the midst of one of the earliest video game market crashes, and I certainly don't consider myself "recent". So when a source says "recent", we have to avoid the knee-jerk reaction of assuming that they mean "this year" or "this decade" when they could have meant 2005 or even 1982. Woodroar (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ranze: you seem to be arguing for us to highlight the recent misogyny by changing the lead to " Gamergate ... is a controversy about misogyny in video game culture in which long-standing issues of sexism in the gamer community became high-profile on social and mainstream media,..." I dont object to that.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's all I want. Clearly the controversy is about a CURRENT conflict in which the issue of misogyny is brought up and thrown about. Sexism is everywhere, both toward men and women, in video games, so that's fine to say. To say that video games are either misogynistic or misandric is a far stronger claim which we need references for though. Ranze (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a worst solution for presenting the conflict, as it is not just about misogyny anymore, and thus turns this completely against the proGG side. Further, plenty of sources throughout the article assert that misogyny is long-standing in the industry. It might require adding them to the lead, but they absolutely do exist already. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You claim "plenty of sources". Please link them and provide the excerpts which support that. I don't think the initial sentence conveys "just about misogyny" as you say, the 2nd half of the sentence also says stuff like "along with issues regarding journalistic ethic" and such. My change did not affect that order. If you are saying you would like journalistic ethic and CoI and stuff to be given earlier mention, I support your view in that. Here, I'll move it up on the page, it deserves it. Ranze (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit: as rude reversions (ie not explaining yourself adequately) are occuring, I am going to document them and my counter-responses to what I feel is edit-warring on the issue without supporting the edits:

1. "reliable sources disagree" from NBSB. They were only half-right. The source provided only discussed sexism, not misogyny, so I altered my approach based on that.
2. "no more downplaying" from Ryulong. The thing is: if reliable sources do not actually support words in Wikipedia, they should be downplayed, questioned, or really, removed altogether if nobody steps up and sources properly.
3. "not a chance in Hades" from Tarc. As you can see, I gave copious reasons for the removal, because no reference clearly supports the claim made in the opening sentence, as I explained. Tarc doesn't even bother to try and support the claim, he just restores it.

If this keeps up, I think this topic should have a moderator assess these types of edits. I'm all for saying misogyny (hating women) is a long-standing issue in gamer communities, but only if a reliable source supports that viewpoint, and a source has not been put next to this strong-meaning word, so I intend to remove it until it is properly sourced, and request others also object to this apparent Original Research. Ranze (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: regarding this latest reversion, you mention "that makes it WORSE towards the GG side". Can you explain what you mean by that? The before/after is:

1. controversy in video game culture in which long-standing issues of sexism and misogyny in the gamer community
2. controversy about misogyny in video game culture in which long-standing issues of sexism in the gamer community

Why is 1 better than 2? How does 2 'make it worse' for GGers exactly? If you think it is alleging that GG is misogynistic, then I disagree and would like to discuss how we can phrase it to steer people away from that interpretation. It is only meant to reflect that misogyny is an issue that has come up, that opposition accuse GGers of misogyny, not agreeing that they are.

Furthermore, you mention "the sources throughout the article support this". Please specify which ones. If a reference supports misogyny being a long-standing issue in gamer community, that reference must be listed next to the claim, otherwise it is unsupported. I analyzed the closest references (the 5 cited after the initial sentence) above, and I believe I showed that none of them actually claim misogyny is a 'long-standing' issue. If we will not omit 'misogyny' then we should at least omit 'long-standing'. If you disagree with my analsis of the 5 above, or would like to bring up a different reference, please do. Simply claiming references support a statement doesn't make a convincing argument, showing the reference doing so, on the other hand, would. Ranze (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Because the controversy is not just about misogyny, and stating that as what this is about completely .. insult? the proGG side and ignoring the arguments they have present. I know the press is biased a bit in presenting the proGG side, but they aren't ignoring the journalism ethics issues. And the lead does not need to be sourced as the body does; I've identified three sources already in the article above and at least 3 additional sources showing misogyny is long-standing. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

To be more specific, this is a two-way controversy - journalists and devs complaining about sexism and misogyny in the gamer community, and the gamer community complaining about collusion and other questionable practices by journalists and devs. Yes, the media has focused on the former as the larger problem, but there's no denying the second aspect exists and not being ignored. --MASEM (t) 21:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is we need a way of mentioning misogyny accusations while detaching it from "long-standing" while keeping "long-standing" attached to 'sexism'. My edit did not convey misogyny to be the sole issue, but I can see how the earliest mention gives it undue focus. Any suggestions on how to detach without moving up front? What 3 sources have you identified supporting the perception of long-term misogyny in gamer culture? Ranze (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Misogyny has been long-standing too. This is not a new factor here. (See the previous harassment of Quinn here). And yes your edit made it seem like misogyny was the only issue in this controversy. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

FAQ

Wasn't there a FAQ? There's a blank section at the top for one and I thought we had discussed it, but I can't find anything in Talk or the archives about that. I can't imagine that would have been revdeled, but you never know. In any case, I think it would be helpful if we filled out the blank FAQ. Woodroar (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

When the page was moved, the FAQ page, which was a separate page, was not. That should now be fixed. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks and cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I initiated the move and neglected to check for the FAQ. --TS 00:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Complete restructuring

So, finding countless problems with this article in addition to the POV issues that have dogged it since its inception on one side or the other, I have made an exceedingly bold edit to the article in the interests of actually sparking an effort at meaningfully addressing the issue. The Analysis section, first off, contained a whole lot of original research with whole paragraphs based on sources completely unrelated to the controversy and all of it was simply unnecessary. Existing sources that actually discuss the controversy addressed the issues at play well enough. At any rate, I felt most of these details belong more in a background section and have thus put them and the stuff regarding the initial incident in December in that section. I also sectioned off the events to more clearly delineate the sequence in which they occurred. Additionally, I added a paragraph concerning the widespread reporting about the "death of the gamer identity" that sprung up since the omission of this is one of the criticisms we are getting for our coverage of the subject. I also rejigged the lede to be more neutral and accurate, as well as expanding it to be more of a summary of the article.

Granted, it certainly still needs work and I recognize that my efforts may just be reverted instantly by one asshole or another who is more intent on keeping a crap article than letting someone do anything to radically alter the status-quo, but at the very least it can give people an idea at how an actual attempt at a NPOV article on this matter compliant with our policy on reliable sources would look. That is at least something. At any rate, discuss it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I've got some issues with it and I'll keep tweaking it, but I agree that it's a significantly improved and simplified structure on the whole, and is much more readable. I appreciate the effort and I don't think it should be reverted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks a lot better thanks Loganmac (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This was a really decent rewrite. Thank you for your efforts. One note (so far): the section describing Quinn's reaction to #notyourshield (Quinn claimed "those posting under #NotYourShield were not of the claimed minority groups) should also note Cinemablend's articles (1, 2) about the hashtag, which show that minorities are posting in the tag. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

That wording was based on a misreading of the sources, though; neither source says that Quinn claimed everyone posting under #NotYourShield was not of the claimed groups. Rather, the sources state "sockpuppet accounts appear to have figured heavily in getting the #GamerGate and #notyourshield campaigns going" (Ars Technica) and "Quinn revealed that members of the 4chan harassment campaigns were apparently behind the creation of #notyourshield" (The Daily Dot). I have reworded the section accordingly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Now it reads like a propaganda piece. It preaches to a certain choir. Great job. 46.197.97.107 (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

My #notyourshield concern seems to have been addressed. Thanks.

Another thing: does #gameethics deserve a mention? It's in all of one Telegraph article. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

it might be wrapped into the first paragraph of the "Role of misogyny and antifeminism" -as part of the analysis "if those of you with potentially real concerns want them to be taken seriously and addressed, you need to separate yourself from the trolls" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm confused by the chronology of the /v/ hacking indiegogo and donating to indiegogo. The way the article reads currently it looks like /v/ first donated to and then later hacked and shut down the project. I would have imagined from the order of events shown in the Forbes article that the hacking actually happened first and then the donation happened afterward as "/v/ rallied". The date that is given for the hacking in our article here (Aug 24) is presented devoid of context (and is missing a source - it doesn't seem to appear in the cited Forbes piece anyway). I tried to fixed this up last night but now I see the donating-then-hacking order has been restored so I thought I'd drop a note here before touching it again. If the hacking really happened after the donation then some explanation is required because that's particularly unexpected behavior (not that I would put it past 4chan). -Thibbs (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I know it's unsourced but the entire 4chan /v/ board has archives, and neither here nor on the IRC it shows NO planning for the hacking, so it was either an obvious false flag, or an individual acting on its own, just so you know https://medium.com/@cainejw/a-narrative-of-gamergate-and-examination-of-claims-of-collusion-with-4chan-5cf6c1a52a60 Loganmac (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• It is supposed to read that someone hacked the project as a counter-protest to /v/'s donations and called out /v/ in the process.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  I'm not satisfied with that section, either. Currently it reads:

  TFYC reported on August 24, that the account for their charity game jam on Indiegogo had been hacked. The 4chan video games board /v/ is explicitly mentioned in the message put up by the perpetrator.

  But 1) it wasn't technically hacked, simply compromised, and 2) "/v/ is explicitly mentioned" doesn't convey the meaning behind the message. "Called out" is too informal. How about "reprimanded"? "/v/ is explicitly reprimanded".

  Another, more general concern, is that TFYC is not technically a charity, even though it's been described as such. Profits go to charity, but the initial money that has been donated so far is intended to fund development. TFYC do not consider themselves a charity but an investment, with "dividends" going to charity simply because there is no avenue for reimbursement of investors, currently. At the crux of their project is their wanting to prove that women are good business investments. This has all been stated in interviews. Edit: could we refer to it as a "video game project"? I apologise for bringing up such a fringe issue but it seems to me we should strive for accuracy. Willhesucceed (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I am a bit concerned on rearranging the order, because while the industry has known some of the issues prior, it really only was the events against Quinn and others that had them going "how did we get here?" and trying to understand what the gamers' (valid) concerns are. Also, I am not really likely the massive regrouping of references in those sections. There are several different thoughts that need separate sourcing. Eg second para of the intro section, about art /indie games, etc. The statement "Gamers are concerned these games push political agendas and are critically praised on how they present social issues as opposed to the nature of the game mechanics." is a rather new thought in that narrative flow, and thus references need to be on the statement before it, and then on this statement. (Not saying one per sentence, but there's a lot of logical steps here that we shouldn't require readers to figure out from a list of ref what applies to what). Also concerned that the pre-GG Quinn stuff should be with that allegations, because what that does is show how she was already a target of harassment. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Concern: " emphasis on games as a art form has led to a focus on social criticism "

I dont see a source for this claim either in the lead or in the body and it rings really false. Social critiques of video games and their tropes and babes in chainmail bikinis and recurring damsel in distress plotlines and "solve problems by shooting things" violence and "promotion of thug/gangster culture" have been longstanding even before the "art game" and before Sarkeesian. Is it that the critiques have moved from academia and mainstream news into traditional "gamerland" in game review sites and vlogs? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Social criticism is not critique of games, but games critique issues about life and society at large - eg addressing social issues (DQ about Depression, Gone Home on LGBT). This was definitely sourced before the rewrite, with those two examples. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

But TRPoD is right that it's nothing new, there's been analysis of video games from cultural perspectives for years in academic journals/monographs; I think his wording is better - that traditional games journalism is picking up on things that previously were only considered in academic sources. That is to say, it is definitely true that the analyses and resulting issues have become increasingly visible in the mainstream. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

A tricky problem (another concern)

Gamergate claims to be a movement started essentially as a loose-knit advocacy group against a number of journalists alleged to have engaged in dishonest behavior and collusion. Regardless if one thinks the points are valid, it seems a bit asinine that the very same journalists being criticized by this movement AS dishonest essentially get to be the sources used to write the wikipedia article. Imagine if there was a scandal in the mainstream press where some random blogger got a whole bunch of (alleged) dirt on corruption at the WaPo, and the the article was written using the WaPo as the primary source. "There is no evidence of corruption at the WaPo!" Lasati (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see the literally dozens of previous threads on this issue. In short, no, you don't get to throw out literally every mainstream reliable source because you believe they are "biased."

Making your movement center around a conspiracy theory that The Washington Post, The Week, The Boston Globe, NPR Marketplace, The Telegraph, The Los Angeles Times, Business Insider, The Indian Express, The Independent, On the Media, Vox Media, Asian Age, The Herald Sun, Pacific Standard, etc. are all colluding and corrupt is not helping your quest for credibility. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I read them. The problem is that some freelancer involved in this thing can actively seek out, and write an article for Time, Guardian, etc... which explicitly defends their position. That doesn't really mean "according to Time..." It just means according to that person. In fact, that is the heart of the matter -- the allegations that journalists using their megaphone inappropriately and with explicit bias, and the claim from normal people who feel they have been libeled having no recourse. I would suggest if we want to genuinely be unbiased, we not cite articles written by people directly involved, regardless of the venue. Like anything Eric Kain writes is fine, because he's not involved in this. But a lot of journalists are, as are a number of gaming sites. I think in general we do need to be picky about sourcing articles when the topic is corruption in journalism. Wikipedia should not be a forum for taking sides, even implicitly. I hope you agree with that. Lasati (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Also note that when you say "YOUR SIDE" you are admitting to your own bias. Also, it's a strawman that you are attributing to me some conspiracy theory that I never talked about. Also, again with the ad hominem "your quest for credibility." Please leave personal attacks out of these things. Lasati (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Your question has been answered. We're not going to remove every reliable source because you think they're biased. Time to move on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

See, this is another strawman. I never said "remove every reliable source." I said don't source articles written by people who are personally involved. That's it. Or at least, move them to a different section. I don't know why you find that such a dangerous statement. I suspect on the OWS page you wouldn't agree to sourcing an article written by an investment banker in the WSJ and using his or her definition of what OWS stands for (regardless of which side you were sympathetic towards). This is essentially the same. Lasati (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, then list the sources used in the article that you believe to be biased. Please note that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, and we do not remove sources merely because someone thinks they're biased. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll jump in and raise two articles: Leigh Alexander's Time article, and Jenn Frank's Guardian article. Leigh writes for many of the sites that are under fire, Vice, Kotaku and RockPaperShotgun among them, and is the editor of Gamasutra. <redacted per BLP> I've questioned their inclusion before, and no one seems to be able to defend it.

Frank's article will have to be included since she's now become a story all her own, but it really shouldn't be included as a reliable source in this article. Also, she hasn't really retired, since she did write a new piece for the Guardian recently. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

We've literally been over those same two sources dozens of times now and the answer is the same every time. We aren't going to second-guess the editorial judgment of Time or The Guardian. The fact that someone writes for websites that are criticized is not remotely sufficient grounds to reject that person's writing as a reliable source. This can be hatted now.

I have redacted an entirely-unsourced and unfounded allegation about living people from your post. Do not make allegations about living people you cannot support with reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

After a third edit conflict ... "We aren't going to second-guess the editorial judgment of Time or The Guardian." That's an unwise attitude to have. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It's also our policy. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, and Time and The Guardian are both indisputable reliable sources. Your personal opinion that they are biased has no impact on whether or not they are reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

With the Jenn Frank thing, didn't a Guardian editor make some statement apologizing for not including the conflict of interest? It's not my personal opinion there was a conflict of interest, it's actually a fact. But like, clearly this is the problem with using an article written by a freelancer (who is personally involved in the issue!) in the online arm of a respectable publication, as tho it represents the publication as a whole. Lasati (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No, actually, that's not a fact. What is a fact is that Frank included a disclosure in her column, but it was removed by Guardian editors who believed it was unnecessary. We discuss the issue in the article, and it does not render that source unusable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Multiple disputes on talk page, NPOV template is necessary

I have added NPOV template due to multiple disputes on this page. The current version is completely one-sided and presents as facts statements of one side and tries to present feminist interpretation of the events as objective fact. Both sides should be presented and attributed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have removed it until you can provide objective evidence that the article "tries to present feminist interpretation of the events as objective fact". NPOV tags should not be applied with such vague and unsupported rationales. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• An insistence that we ignore RS and WP:UNDUE in favour of conspiracy theories is not the kind of dispute that template is for. 67.138.164.67 (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This is much better than it was before, and seems pretty fair to me, considering the sources available. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that there is presently an outstanding dispute going on over on the dispute resolution noticeboard, it seems a bit strange to remove the tag. That being said, article is massively better than it was, and is getting much more balanced, though I still think the lead needs to be fixed. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this source reliable

#GamerGate, Anita Sarkeesian and Video Game Journalism: It’s Time For Change ? Tries to present a somewhat neutral stance on both sides of the controversy.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

see above, nope. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Related deletion discussion

Editors here may wish to enter an opinion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MyMoloboaccount/GamerGate. Tarc (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Huh? What is my sandbox page got to do with this? I work on my edits outside the mainspace and when some of them are ready I move them to mainspace. If you wish to discuss something ask me on my main user page.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Article deletion

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

---

This article should be deleted due to the unavailability of unbiased information. All the media sources are by default biased against the GamerGate controversy since they are the ones being targeted by the GamerGate controversy. Furthermore, its a current issue, and not of any historical importance as of yet (it will be when its over, but for the time being, it is not.) Then you have the fact that the article is clearly biased due to some of the editors involved in this page are actively participating in the anti-gamergate movement, and are as such biased against anything positive about it (Such as the fact that it isnt about misogyny but about the "journalists" having sexual relationships with "developers" (neither can be put without quotes, sadly) and the fact that there is a group of people cooperating to give games an overall reception, instead of the individual journalists unique opinion. Zoe Quinn is something on the sidelines now, only being a catalyst to what is now a much larger scandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.190.167 (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I am unsure that these are deletion grounds according to Wikipedia policy. 67.138.164.67 (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This whole thing has too much WP:COI in it. It's practically waist deep in it. This article needs to be rewritten A.S.A.P. --The Defender of Light >Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing Inventory 00:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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