Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 51

This is an archive of past discussions about Gamergate (harassment campaign). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

→

Lead length and tagging

The article was recently given a "lead too long" tag and then shortly de-tagged. I have no doubt that both were good faith edits, but it gives me a chance to sing my same old tune, so I will! I definitely think the lead here is too long. While I think all the information belongs in the article, I think the lead could be condensed down to a paragraph or two. I tried drafting such a lead some time ago and was summarily (though courteously) shot down. Just throwing this against the wall again, though I am aware I am not likely to have anything near consensus. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Entire article remains terrible. No constructive edits are likely while it is under such extraordinary measures. Have raised it several times, and inevitably it returns to the status quo with persistent drift in the direction of accruing more dross. Koncorde (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with both above comments. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone is entirely happy with everything in this article. I've been staring at the lede for 30 minutes and there are certainly changes that I would make, but I doubt there's consensus to make them. Oh well, maybe I'll shoot for something BOLD and self-revert as a place to discuss. Woodroar (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

First draft

Opinions on this version of the lede? Everyone will probably hate it, but it's worth a shot. Woodroar (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's quite good, though, perhaps I'm just merciless as I would say the third paragraph still strikes me as unnecessary with some slight strengthening of the "commentators dismissed" language. I think stylistically the ending to the second paragraph makes a better conclusion as well. That being said, I would happily support this version as drafted. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I like it. I'm of two minds on whether there's material that was cut that should be kept, but as a shorter summary it works fairly well. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I see it, perhaps cynically and perhaps realistically, as a minimalist version that will necessarily attract cruft, haha. I did consider cutting the third paragraph entirely, but I'm in the middle of a Star Wars marathon at the moment and I had to consider my priorities. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Long live the stormtrooper who bumps his head on the way through the door! Dumuzid (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, no objections here. Artw (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think "In August 2014, game developer Zoë Quinn was falsely accused of entering a relationship with a journalist in exchange for positive coverage." or "The harassment against Quinn as well as developer Brianna Wu and cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian included doxing, and threats of assault, rape, and murder." is needed as starting sentences. While the initial basis, the events have moved on. It also reads like someone took a look at the order of the section headings and went to mirror that (which isn't always a great idea).

"Most Gamergate supporters are anonymous" might be true and probably sourced, but seems a strong assertion given many can be named (and are proud of their association).

"The controversy has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over cultural diversification, social criticism in video games, and the identity of gamers." this sentence should be in the opening.

I would say opening paragraph should be along the lines of the below (not how I would actually write it, but here just for expediency):

"Gamergate refers to the controversy around a harassment campaign and issues related to sexism and progressivism in video game culture. "Gamergate" is used as a blanket term for the controversy, the harassment campaign, and actions by those perpetrating the harassment. The harassment was coordinated under the Twitter hashtag #Gamergate, as well as on Internet Relay Chat channels and websites such as reddit, 4chan, and 8chan. The controversy has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over cultural diversification, social criticism in video games, and the identity of gamers."

You can then go into the specifics / background and wider cultural statements by critics. Koncorde (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Not really seeing a version of the lede that avoids mentioning Quinn as plausible, since it began as a harrasment campaign against her and they remain obsessed with her. Not really sure there's any evidence of anyone "moving on". Artw (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Ms. Quinn should be mentioned, but I am not sure we need to bring up Ms. Wu or Ms. Sarkeesian in the lead -- I would personally favor a sentence like, "The controversy began with allegations against game developer Zoe Quinn, but quickly grew to include threats and harassment aimed at her as well as a number of other women in the wider video game world." That's clunky, but I trust the idea is visible. Dumuzid (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Not saying that they don't get mentioned, but that the starting sentences are forced with their inclusion (particularly the way it is currently written). And yes, obviously it has moved on, otherwise why does this have an article at all, rather than just being part of their biographies? Are you saying there is no wider culture war? Because we are presenting evidence across the board that this is much more than harassment of those 3 individuals (even if one of them was the primary focus). Koncorde (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to changing how we mention them, but I think that sources do support us naming them in the lede. I just looked at 40 references, and of those about or summarizing GamerGate (as opposed to articles about tangentially related topics), only 2 did not mention Quinn and something like 5 did not mention Wu or Sarkeesian. (I was mostly looking for instances of "Quinn" and lost count on Wu and Sarkeesian.) To me, this indicates that all three are very much part of the whole story. Woodroar (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I repeat - the first paragraph should summarise what the article is about. As it currently stands it tries to be too detailed, and then sporadically mentions more critical information elsewhere. This is not about removing those sentences from the lede, it's about where they should sit. Not sure how much more clear I can be. Koncorde (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

"the first paragraph should summarise what the article is about." - then Quinn is mentioned exactly where she should be. Artw (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Defending terrible writing and structure is why the article quality sucks. The lede successfully replicates the bloated monstrosity of the body. Koncorde (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Koncorde, my reply was a more general one. I do think that moving the "August 2014" events down in the lede would result in a cleaner first paragraph. But the sources clearly discuss Quinn more than any "culture war", and that counts for something. I hesitate to get too poetic, but Gamergate is notable chiefly because of this war's victims, not because of the war itself. Woodroar (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been arguing since day 1 that this is article is largely a blow-by-blow summary of the harassment of individuals rather than actually about the "controversy" or any other subject matter - so I don't disagree - but that in itself is why this is not a good article. Koncorde (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect Koncorde, that "blow-by-blow" summary approach seems to me to be in line with the way the reliable sources covered this nebulous thing called "gamergate." What specifically do you think is receiving short shrift in the article? Dumuzid (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not the short shrift, it's the gratuitous detail. A lot of the article is Claim vs Counter Claim, which is not synthesis as they are often directly referencing each other, but is also a very uncomfortable read with shoehorned quotations. The Anita Sarkeesian was also overly detailed, but by applying some reasonable editing we were able to summarise the key points more succinctly. As with most articles there's the rush to include quotes and data points from every single source, but after a while you end up with so much information that condensing the article is the best solution. An obvious minor change would be to adjust "History" to "Background" or "Origins of the #Gamergate controversy". Koncorde (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I certainly agree with you here. Especially as these events recede in to the past, I think you're quite right that we can sort of smooth it out in to more of a narrative. I doubt we'll have consensus just yet, but I have your back, as the youths are wont to say. Dumuzid (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This sentence from the current version needs to stay in the lead: "Many of those organizing under the Gamergate hashtag argue that they are campaigning against political correctness and poor journalistic ethics in the video game industry." It's essentially the only mention of any other side to this controversy and needs to remain to provide some modicum of neutrality and balance. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Two questions, in the interest of getting things exactly right. (a) How many people would be required for us to describe them as “many”? More than two? Ten? A hundred? Or is the criterion some percentage -- what percentage, exactly? -- of the total number of those organizing under the Gamergate hashtag (b) What sources specifically indicate meeting this threshold? Is anyone absolutely certain that "those organizing under the Gamergate hashtag" included any substantial number of individuals? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Plus, one correction. To complain of poor journalistic ethics in the video game industry is absurd, like complaining of poor pitching in NFL Football. People employed in the video game industry are not journalists; they are video game industry employees. What is mean, surely, is alleged ethical lapses among some journalists covering the video-game industry.? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Both your points are easily corrected, if there's consensus to make changes to the sentence. On the first point, by changing "many" to "some" or simply removing the word, based on what sources in the Debate over ethics allegations section say. The four sources right at the beginning of that section look to be the most likely place to look. On the second point, by rewriting the phrasing of the second sentence to more explicitly say "video games journalism" rather than "video games industry". My central point is that some mention of the viewpoint of GG supporters as described by same needs to remain in the lead. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Something really ought to be done about the blanket term statement currently in the lede. It implies that everyone who views thesmselves as amemebr fo gaemrgate or supportive of gamergate, ist aking part in a harassment campaign. Such a claim is not supported in the secondary sources. Brustopher (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Gamergate and WaterGate (CamelCase hashtag)

Okay, the original (by Baldwin) and most popular version of the hashtag is CamelCase, and at a previous time, so were most of the references in the article. I know "Watergate" was not a compound word, and neither should most "-gate" things, but that's not what Baldwin wrote, and not what people primarily use. Maybe it's a commentary on how people not being familiar enough with the plain term "scandal" to get interest (see also, Bendgate). IIRC, Strongjam or Woodroar removed most of them for some reason, maybe he felt it was unsightly, but I boldly put it back in the lead as the hashtag. This shouldn't reasonably be any sort of major issue, but then again, this is the GGC lead. If you don't feel it is remotely important, feel free to ignore this notification and go back to restructuring the lead. :) -Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Discuss-Dubious:. I don't recall removing it, but it's possible. Typically per MOS:CAPS we follow normal English capitalization and don't CamelCase, but I'm not sure if thats a strict rule or just a guideline, Masem may remember better I believe he's who I learned it from. However, I personally don't care as long as we are consistent. There was consensus sometime ago to style it "Gamergate", but if consensus changes that's fine. I don't really have strong opinion one way or another. If we are going to continue with "Gamergate" instead of "GamerGate" it may be worthwhile to just put in something like "... the Gamergate hashtag, typically styled "#GamerGate", ..." — Strongjam (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe I've changed "GamerGate" to "Gamergate" en masse previously, unless it was to enforce consensus or the Manual of Style, but of course I could be wrong. Past discussions based on policy have pointed to WP:MOS (especially WP:CAMELCASE), which require that we use standard English capitalization rules in our articles, therefore "Gamergate". Of course, CAMELCASE has changed over time (WP:CCC) and now permits camelcase "where it reflects general usage". So it really doesn't matter how Baldwin capitalized it, but how reliable sources capitalize it, and if they do so consistently.

This presents a problem. Major search engines don't differentiate between case, so we can't search for "GamerGate" and "Gamergate" in Google and see which returns more hits. What we can do is look at the 244 references currently in the article and see that 58 use "GamerGate" in their title and 62 use "Gamergate". Or we can look at the first page of Google results for "gamergate" and see 10 instances of "GamerGate" and 17 of "Gamergate". (I ignored the first result from Wikipedia.) We can extend this to the first 10 pages of Google results, which give us 89 instances of "GamerGate" and 107 of "Gamergate". So "general usage" doesn't point towards camelcased "GamerGate" at all, but "Gamergate". Which means we should change it back, unless, that is, someone has a better method of gauging usage among reliable sources?

And if it's worth anything, I go back and forth but generally use "GamerGate" myself on Talk pages.

Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I've taken a look at MOS:CAPS's trademark section. The first and second sentences of the first paragraph would relate to not using it as the primary, but the third sentence suggests "mixed or non-capitalized formatting should be mentioned in the article lead, or illustrated with a graphical logo". Looking at the broader trademark policy, the one I think applies best is the 7th outer bullet, with the Oxycontin/OxyContin example. I think in archive 24, Masem uses the 4th outer bullet (with the ASUS example) based on the terms he uses. Most of the archives are strongly against using it as the main style, and the consensus precedent was applied to the hashtag in this Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure which discussions you're talking about. There's no mention of "ASUS" in any of the archives as far as I could tell. And I'm not sure what you mean about the "CamelCase for Hashtag?" discussion. In any case, it's not like "GamerGate" is a trademark or an official spelling, because there is no official spelling, only what the sources use. I could perhaps see an argument for adding '(sometimes capitalized as "Gamergate")' in the first sentence because a significant percentage of sources use camelcase. As long as that's the consensus opinion, of course. Woodroar (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I know it's not really a trademark, per se. The reason I bring up MOSTM is because of this discussion, which came up when I searched "CamelCase" in the thing. The "wording" I mean is when Masem talks about "standard casing". (9th response) Bullet point 4 talks about "standard English" and "nonstandard" usage. Vordox used that thread as precedent in the thread I linked above. I edited the post to mention the word. Hopefully, I sound more coherent now, even if incorrect policy-wise.

Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft status update

My draft article has evolved substantially since first presented in December, included revised and new sections, though still not complete. More about its purpose and status can be found on the draft's talk page Rhoark (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

TotalBiscuit BBC3 interview

[1] [2] Interesting reference? PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting? Perhaps. Includable here? No. His only credentials are his popularity as a podcaster and whatever notability he has does not even come close to clearing the bar for having any of his opinions included in this article. Marteau (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure this discussion page is full of opinion pushers and I'm not going to indulge in in depth discussions about a subject which i don't care about. It's an interview by a reputable source which litterally states that the subject, TotalBiscuit, was "at the very centre of #GamerGate". As far as I know the WP guidelines, that qualifies it as a relevant article that should be included unless there are better sources that refute his relevance to the subject. PizzaMan (♨♨) 22:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

What text would you like added, and where exactly? With the citation please. Marteau (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Like I said: I don't care about the subject and I don't feel like arguing about it. You seem to know more about it than me, so you're better suited than me to decide how to incorporate the reference. PizzaMan (♨♨) 23:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I know what this is. @Marteau: Perhaps he wants to mention something about "In an interview with BBC Three, Bain claimed he has recieved death threats from and has been harassed by trolls who opposed his view on Gamergate. He has since left social media."source. PizzaMan, is this what you want? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, perhaps add his remark that these trolls consider themselves social justice advocates, but i know little about the subject and I'd like to keep it that way if you don't mind. I once tried actively contributing to a vaguely related entry without any agenda and bumped into a wall of manipulative opinion pushers, so I'm really staying out of the discussions here. I found an imho relevant reference and I'll leave it up to the editors here what to do with it. Thank you for making a suggestion for that. PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree here with the most recent two comments by Discuss-Dubious, as at the very least the BBC source itself could have some useful info to impart to this article. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

SXSW Harrassment Summit

Since we're can deal with coverage from an actual event now, rather than just the dramatic lead up, we should probably look at what we need to take from it:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artw (talk • contribs) 06:49, 13 March 2016‎ (UTC)

There's also some coverage of the Savepoint panel SXSW panel rallies pro-Gamergate community Artw (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

SXSW's Gamergate panel was as disappointing as expected Artw (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Obama has a few words. Useful? Probably not, but you have it. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

As noted by Liz, below, this is directly relevant to this article: "He doesn't say the word "Gamergate" but what he describes is exactly what happened in Gamergate." This is directly referencing the Gamergate social movement. — Cirt (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

WA Post that has the neutrality we need to emulate

Washington Post. Please note the tone of this article, specifically how:

It acknowledges that GG is reportedly (but not factually) a movement, though in their efforts as a movement, they have engaged in behavior that is considered hostile.
It acknowledges that there has been harassment surrounding GG, possibly even by some of its members. while other members have attempted to distance GG from this.
It acknowledges that both sides (GG and the press) are at fault, talking past each other, and failing to find a middle ground.

In other words, this is the receipt for the neutral take on the whole GG situation that we as Wikipedia need to be using that I and others have argued for in the past. It still is highly critical of GG, but recognizes there is no one right answer to describing what GG is. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

So, "neutrality" is defined as: "Masem's preferred take." Got it, thanks! And for what it's worth, welcome back. Dumuzid (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No, my take has always been that there are so many unknowns and claims being thrown around that the best take for the article is to write it without the absolutes that it currently has, simply to document rather than blame. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, that's a pretty good article, and definitely the kind of higher quality, retrospective analysis I hope to see more of as this stops being burdened by current events style coverage. Emulating that article's balanced approach is something to aim for. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

What "sides"? Artw (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Also I thought you were against op-eds? Artw (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I never said I was against op-eds, only when editors use op-eds to force a controversial statement made by them as fact rather than a claim, as demanded by NPOV. We're stuck with the fact that most of the coverage of GG is from op-eds from RSes, but we can still make a proper neutral article from that. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The bulk of the op-ed appears under the disclaimer that it's giving Gamergate the benefit of the doubt. While I could see why that would be aplealing to you - you've long been a proponent of a FOX news style "fair and balanced" approach over regular POV rules - I wouldn't characterize doing so as uncontroversial at all. Artw (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I never said I want anything like FOX "fair and balanced" (which I am assuming is being taken as sarcasm on what that term means given FOX News' reputation). First, as pointed out below, UNDUE/WEIGHT prevents anything from a "balanced" article given the weight of sources critical of GG. I don't question that at this point. Nor is the sources going to make GG smelling like flowers. It is going to come out very much negative sounding for GG. But we can avoid stating absolutes, tempering questionable facts as sourced claims instead and focusing on the fact that no one really has a good handle on what GG , only on what they perceive it is. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, per BLP, as this and other articles name people that call themselves as part of GG, to call that group factually as a harassment group is very much a problem, as this effectively calling those named people harassers without proof. BLP requires us give this the benefit of the doubt, which is the whole point of WP's neutrality policy. We do not judge the topic. --MASEM (t) 02:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

How many times have you beaten this particular dead horse? I suggest you go bother WP:BLPN about it rather than wasting our time. Artw (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

While its style is a tad too informal to serve as a template for coverage, its gestalt attitude is consistent with what has always been found in the most reliable sources, and has always failed to be reflected on Wikipedia. I expect to see more examples as SXSW unfolds, and hopefully the appearance of a template-quality retrospective piece. Rhoark (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing useful here, and (sigh) Masem apparently needs to be reminded again: the article is a proper, neutral article that reflects the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources -- all of which disagree with Masem. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This would make sense, if only the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources claim were true, and if only there was some sort of WP:FOLLOWTHESOURCES policy which suggested that we should write articles reflecting the slant & tone of an overwhelming consensus of sources. Rightly or wrongly, we only have the policies which actually do exist - WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV - the last of which clearly prescribes that articles should be written in a tone impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. The overwhelming consensus argument is a Furphy - stick a flaming fork in it. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

one of these days one of you guys are going to read WP:WEIGHT and it's going to blow your minds. Artw (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is also part of WP:NPOV, and cannot be read or understood in isolation from the remainder of that policy. The sections of WP:NPOV which deal with tone are in the introduction, the explanation at WP:YESPOV (Prefer nonjudgemental language), and at WP:IMPARTIAL. WP:WEIGHT cannot be a valid reason for us to ignore these other sections of the same policy. We must find ways to satisfy the whole of the policy - and the whole is clear that tone must be impartial.
I note also that the example presented at WP:WEIGHT, the Flat Earth theory precludes the inclusion of that theory in the Earth article, but does not preclude a fair, neutral & impartially toned explanation of at the Flat Earth article. This, the Gamergate controversy article, is the equivalent of the Flat Earth article. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Weight has nothing to do with tone, which is the problem that this article still has. We do not adopt the tone of the popular opinion if that is a controversial opinion. The popular opinion will dominate the article, but we still must write it in a non-condemning tone. Let quotes from the popular opinion condemn GG, but neutrality demands we treat that as claims, not fact. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about where you see WP:TONE issues? Vague statements about it aren't useful; we need to know which specific sentences you object to. My reading is that the article accurately and neutrally represents the facts (as reported by the sources we have available); it feels like your objection is that these facts, taken together with the weight they have in reliable sources, don't give the overarching impression of the controversy that you believe is right -- that there is a problem in focus, in how most mainstream sources frame the discussion. But that is not a WP:TONE issue (in fact, it means we are correctly adhering to the tone rules in WP:NPOV); WP:NPOV and WP:DUE do not allow us to 'adjust' the balance of sources in order to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE between sides in a dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back, Masem! I'm sure I'll enjoy this proposal as much as the countless others you will surely soon make. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Are we going back to Masem's Daily Repetition of thousands of words of text ←←defending the same tired shibboleths? We already have three restatements of the same old discredited argument, that we need to deskew the reliable sources because they are all bias. I've already read hundreds of thousands of words of this from this one editor, as have a number of other volunteers who have worked to prevent Gamergate from using this article to punish women for pursuing careers in the software industry. No, wikipedia will not invent a tone sympathetic to Gamergate harassment beause we support it, or because we think the media are all bias, or because we have super secret insider information that's really keen. If we're returning to this old habit, let's cut straight to the chase and head direct to AE and thence to Arbcom, Congress, and the opinions of mankind. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you please tone down the snide remarks and assumptions of bad faith right out of the gate? You don't have to participate if you're not willing to so collegially. The argument is not discredited, merely controversial. There are plenty of editors who feel this article needs a lot of work to more accurately match the tone of the best reliable sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is about reals and not feels, Torchiest. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was essentially my point. The claim that anyone who takes issue with the current state of this article supports harassment has no basis in reality. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe the endless claims that the article is biased because you or any of your friends feel offended by it has any hold, nor is it likely to ever. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from adopting a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on this talk page. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Washington Post is an unquestionably a reliable source. The byline is a reporter subject to editorial control of WP. Generally, we take reliable sources that have the most complete take on a subject which means current sources replace outdated sources when a clearer picture emerges. --DHeyward (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI: It's an op-ed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It's style is in the form of an FAQ. It's in the "news" section of Washington Post. It's written by a staff reporter covering a current event SXSW. He's not an editor and I don't see an opinion disclaimer. In any case, facts would still be subject to oversight. Why do you believe it's an op-ed? Our article reads more like an Op-Ed compared to a straight news piece so maybe you are confusing the two? --DHeyward (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I think your comments and the subsequent disagreement highlight that we really at some point need to have a massive RfC to settle the two big questions that plague all discussions on this article. "Can Gamergate referred to as a movement?" and (once the first question is settled, "What should this article actually be about?" Also, genuinely good to see you back Masem. You were the only person who used to update the article with recent occurences, so with you gone it's gotten kinda out of date. Brustopher (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that the core of the dispute is closer to "can we relax the usual standards WP:RS, WP:DUE, and WP:NPOV when some people feel that the vast majority of normally-reliable news sources are unreliable on this topic?" That is at the heart of most of the complaints about this article; the article, as it exists now, is (mostly) an accurate reflection of the overarching coverage in reliable, mainstream news sources, with weight and tone appropriate to how things are covered in those sources. There might be some minor rewordings we could go over in a few areas, but the overarching changes that some people are pushing for aren't possible without making an exception to our core content policies for this article. It would be nice to get that settled once and for all so we can move on. --Aquillion (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought that one was settled? Didn't we have a massive RfC on that issue ages ago? The 'movement' question and the, what does 'Gamergate controversy' mean questions, are the two biggest unresolved questions where there's actual room to move foward in. The movement question is a tricky one which could really go either way, and probably needs a handling which is nuanced and reads well. Also I'd say the first paragraph as it stands does not accurately reflect the sources. Brustopher (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel we need an RFC for that part; whether or not we should use the word 'movement' at all is not really the question, since we're already quoting people who do in a few places. The activities section says:

"Following the accusations against Quinn, proponents of Gamergate began to use the "KotakuInAction" subreddit and boards on 8chan to discuss and organize. Because of its anonymous membership, lack of organization and leaderless nature, sources differ as to the goals or mission of Gamergate and, with no person or group able to speak for Gamergate, defining it has been difficult. As the threats expanded, international media focused on Gamergate's violent, misogynistic element and its inability to present a coherent message. Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Bob Stuart reported that: "Gamergate has since swelled into an unwieldy movement with no apparent leaders, mission statement, or aims beyond calling out 'social justice warriors'."

That, I think, covers most of what people are requesting; the reason people are complaining is because it doesn't get very much focus in the article -- some people seem to want the entire article (or large sections of it) structured around the idea of Gamergate-as-a-movement, with a prominent place in the lead and a lot more detail than "some people have said it morphed into a disorganized, decentralized movement focused around calling out so-called social justice warriors." But that's a separate question from whether we should mention it at all; and I think that it's pretty clear just by looking over the sources that there isn't much support for structuring the entire article around that perspective -- it'd be giving WP:UNDUE weight to one of numerous ways it's been covered, especially since the sources that have gone furthest into depth on the topic tend closer to the "hard to define" formation we're using currently. We could have an RFC about that, perhaps, but I'd want to be specific that the question is about the amount of weight it should get and whether we should structure the article (or significant portions of it) around that aspect, not whether we should include things like Bob Stuart's quote in the article at all (because we already do!) --Aquillion (talk)

I don't think the general gist of that op-ed overs anything that isn't already in our article; the core conclusion is that "the incredibly violent way in which some Gamergaters have expressed their frustration with video game reporting has poisoned the well for those who honestly believe they're pointing out a problem. And opponents of Gamergate are equally justified in condemning the frothing rage to which they've been subjected", which we already cover, more or less, cited to a better source. Beyond that I don't see much in there that would be useful for rewriting the article; bigger questions about the nature of the controversy and the sides involved are better cited to sources discussing that directly (of which there are many) rather than to an aside in an article about SXSW, which was a tangential aspect. --Aquillion (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

+1. But speaking of NPOV, whether Gamergate can be referred to as "a movement" is doubtful, but that is can be referred to as "a conspiracy" is certain. So, when we have that "massive RfC", let's be sure to give equal weight to each proposal.

not a forum

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There's also an excellent case to be made for "terrorism campaign" -- a case which, if recent events at Donald Trump’s campaign rallies are an indication -- will soon be yet more salient. The relationship between Trumpism and Gamergate’s sense of grievance does merit a closer look, as we'll doubtless see from the coverage of sessions to which this Washington Post op-ed writer is looking forward, We'll see what unfolds.

MarkBernstein (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI, it's not an op-ed. Straight up background reporting for a current event. --DHeyward (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty clearly an opinion peice of the "hey, everyone should get along and ignore the harassment campaign because these guys might have something to say, though what I will not specify", with very little in the way of background material and certainly nothing we don't have here. Artw (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not what I read. That seems to your POV and not supported by WaPo. There's no opinion or editorial in the piece. It's background for SXSW and the discussions that will take place. The journalist is paid reporter staff for WaPo and it's in the news section with no disclaimer. --DHeyward (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Artw (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

?? WTF? --DHeyward (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

As for a "Gamergate movement" page, I don't believe there's a way of creating such an article without it basically being a POV fork and so we should not do so. Artw (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The article is already a POV fork highlighted by your mistaken belief that the news piece in WaPo is an op-ed. In fact, the WaPo piece should be one of the most heavily weighted reliable sources due to it's straight news coverage and the benefit it has being removed from initial observations. It's beyond the fog. --DHeyward (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Um, no. The article as it stands is not a POV fork. Possibly you need to read up on what a POV fork actually is? Artw (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

From today in The Guardian [3]: "Gamergate is a loose collection of people who believe that 'social justice warriors' are trying to politicize video games by trying to make them more diverse. The movement grew into an amorphous and persistent mob with a coordinated campaign of harassment that targeted prominent women and minorities in the technology world." That's more recent, so EVEN MORE beyond the fog, I guess! Dumuzid (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Routinely it has been referred to as a "movement" (about 6 months ago I went through 50% of the sources and almost all used it in some fashion). It's well established that this article would not be called "Gamergate controversy" if there wasn't an ant holding precedence. While this article is called the "controversy" there is no room for the "movement". This leaves the article accurate/NPOV for discussion of the "controversy" but of no use for actually discussing Gamergate itself. Resistance to renaming the article, which would immediately force a rethink of the content, has long been resisted by the "not a movement argument" coming from editors, rather than actual usage in sources. Koncorde (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Koncorde, I actually have some sympathy for this sentiment, though I would quibble on whether it's the primacy of the ant classification that's responsible for this being a "controversy" page. The harassment is certainly what got press coverage, and therefore made this whole mess notable per Wikipedia. But that aside, it's tough for me to imagine a "Gamergate movement (or group, or hashtag, or what have you)" page that is not merely a POV fork of this one. I confess I also don't think there's that much you could really say with any assurance. But why not try drafting an independent article? As I say, I can't envision it, but I am not omniscient (nor all that smart). Even if it just ends up as fodder for this page, it's still a positive step. Just a thought, of course. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

With textbook coverage of this issue becoming more common, in regards to GamerGate being a "movement" we have "Law of Journalism and Mass Communication" (CQ Press, Nov 2015) by Robert Trager PhD (Associate Professor of Political Science, UCLA) Susan Dente Ross PhD (Associate Dean of Research at Washington State Univ) and Amy Reynolds PhD (Associate Professor of Sociology, Wheaton Univ) where on page 529 it says, "In response to what some called biased journalistic coverage of video games, the GamerGate movement emerged in 2014, named after its Twitter hashtag (#GamerGate). GamerGate became an online movement accused of cyberbullying and misogynistic threats to those who sought real social change in the video game industry." (emphasis mine) Marteau (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Marteau, so, do you think a "Gamergate movement" page could be created separate from this one would which not simply be a POV fork? Dumuzid (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the need. Although this article needs a lot of work and has some fatal flaws, there is no reason coverage of the movement, the hashtag, and the events and people surrounding them cannot and should not be covered in one article. Marteau (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the reason for this section is because WaPo did it in one news article. It's a pretty good summary and they covered more than our entire 18 month-old article. --DHeyward (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

DHeyward, then why not draft something so we can talk about concrete changes? It's worth a shot, no? Dumuzid (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I have emerged from my WikiBreak and resumed work on the draft I started in December. The latest section, on Gamergate as an entity[4], is apropos. Rhoark (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this Rhoark, I think it's a commendable effort. My initial question would be simply: is GamePolitics.com a reliable source? I don't know much about it, but it seems to mostly be described as a "blog" and I don't see much editorial control (though my investigation has not been exhaustive). Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I know mainly what is at GamePolitics.com, but the key factors seem to be that it meets the non-negotiable RS requirements (i.e., not UGC) and is reputable within the specific arena of video game controversies. There's also the proof-in-the-pudding that they have actually researched the topic to a degree that is rare in GGC RS's. Rhoark (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looking over WP:RS, I would suggest GamePolitics.com is easily reliable for attributed opinion (per WP:NEWSORG, WP:RSOPINION). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I am obviously less bothered about clear statements of opinion (though I am not totally sold that GamePolitics meets that threshold either), but the draft as presented relies on the site for some statements of fact and for survey responses, which is an interesting issue itself. Honestly, with all due respect to Rhoark, I think the section would be stronger without paragraphs 3 and 5 and with a reworked paragraph 4. I don't mean this pejoratively towards Rhoark's writing or the information presented, for the record! Dumuzid (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of the section is to give the best available information on what Gamergate the Thing is as opposed to Gamergate the Controversy. Basically, its a bunch of people yammering on social media, but describing how many people, who are the prominent ones, and what they are like gives the reader something more concrete to hang their hat on. I used GamePolitics because its where the most complete and current information is. Deadspin and CJR clearly believed the number of Redditors was a useful figure, so its not a stretch to trust Brad Glasgow that it's still a relevant number a year later and to read off what that number is. Likewise we can get the general summary that "GGers say ethics, anti says harassment" from any number of places like CNN or BBC if we need to fortify the due weight of what comes from the horse's mouth (from KiA or Valenti/Herzog respectively). Rhoark (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand the purpose, but I think the numbers are a bit too primary source-ish; what they mean is really not represented in your section (probably because it's largely unknown) and I think it's better without them. As to prominent members, I again think that's misleading in a "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" way. After saying "it is a movement without leaders," it says "here are some prominent folks (read: leaders)." But even moreso, no disrespect to those listed, but they're not terribly prominent on their own. If say, Queen Elizabeth II were an acknowledged gamergater, that would be news. It feels, in short, a bit like your article (or at least the section at issue) as drafted is trying to impose order on something more nebulous--"Gamergate is a formless movement, but, here's the form." Still, thanks for getting this ball rolling. Dumuzid (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Revised a bit. Fewer numbers, better organized, fortified with vitamin RS. Rhoark (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Another new article, from NYtimes [5], emphasis mine:

"Much of it has centered on the games industry and is associated with a grass-roots movement called “#GamerGate,” a term used by a group of people who are fighting against what they say are unfair portrayals of video game enthusiasts as anti-feminists and misogynists.
But, paradoxically, people associated with the movement have systematically targeted and attacked women online, including women like Ms. Wu and Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist cultural critic who focuses often on video games and game culture."

This clearly establishes there is GG the movement, and there are some but not all people using the GG movement for harassment, and that harassment has been bad and a point of discussion for a long time. But it clearly differentiates this from GG as a whole being a harassment campaign, only that some in its ranks have used it as such. This remains consistent with the WAPost point above and the article collection Rhoark previously reviewed. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Ahem. Quoting the paragraph before significantly shifts that though:

The experiences of Ms. Wu, who works for the gaming studio Giant Spacekat, are not an anomaly. Other women in the gaming community have faced similar online harassment, which, they say, goes far beyond name calling and has moved into the realm of violent threats and rampant misogyny.

Much of it has centered on the games industry and is associated with a grass-roots movement called “#GamerGate,” a term used by a group of people who are fighting against what they say are unfair portrayals of video game enthusiasts as anti-feminists and misogynists.

So I don't think your point really stands. Artw (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The logic flow is: 1) Woman in the gaming community have been facing harassment. 2) Much of that harassment is around the games industry. 3) Much of that harassment in the games industry is associated to the GG movement. 4) The GG movement is a group fighting against unfair portrayals. 5) Some members of that group engage in harassment. This logic asserts that some of the harassment Wu and others face are from people that are associated with GG (which is a point we can factually state), but it does not at all say that GG is a harassment campaign, and in fact asserts differently, that it is a protest movement against a perceived problem in the industry. Just because members of a group are doing something bad does not immediately make the entire group factually guilty. --MASEM (t) 02:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it clearly defines Gamergate as "a term used by a group of people who are fighting against what they say are unfair portrayals of video game enthusiasts as anti-feminists and misogynists." Where's the part where Gamergate is described as a harassment campaign? Because I'm not seeing it. Your supposed rebuttal sounds suspiciously like a fallacy of composition to me. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This article by The Washington Post most certainly seems to be a good reliable source and also model template for material presentation related to this topic of the Gamergate social movement. It presents a good summary of recent events in a most WP:NPOV and WP:RS manner. Specifically, The Washington Post article states: "Put simply, Gamergate is the name of an online movement. The term "Gamergate" is also used to refer, in shorthand, to a bitter dispute between two groups that both believe they're deeply in the right." This article is a great model and a source of a wealth of information that is neutrally presented about the Gamergate social movement. — Cirt (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Alison Rapp

The original, passive voice description of her firing and the complaints were unintelligible. It read as if the "GamerGate harassers" were attacking her for both removing sexualized content ("localization") while at the same time attacking her for defending the Japanese original sexualized content in her paper. It needs some attribution and the name associated with Rapp defending Japanese sexualized content is "Jamie Walton." Multiple sources list her comments calling for Rapp's termination. Sources list her as being from the Wayne Foundation Later, Jamie Walton of the Wayne Foundation, an anti-sex trafficking campaigner, tweeted that Rapp should be fired as a result of the views expressed in her essay.[6]. It makes more sense to attribute views to the individuas the reliable sources cite. "Jamie Walton" is listed as the primary person calling for termination on the child pornography grounds. Also, I changed "stripped" to "removed" as "stripped" has misogynistic sexual overtones (i.e. "stripper") that are completely out of place considering the all the buzz around the second job. No reason to use language that furthers a negative view of the job and "removed" is a much better choice of words. --DHeyward (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"Gamergate harassers" are a disparate collection. I believe you yourself have stated this in the past. Is it not possible that some hold views at odds with others, and while they may share a target, they have several different reprehensible motives for harassment? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

As to specifically attributing that to Walton; I really don't think we can do this at this phase. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of which, this could be useful. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 04:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Walton is directly mentioned in nearly every source. In fact, it's hard to find a source that doesn't mention Walton. What part did you think needs more sourcing? The sources link to the tweets which is why every source attributes the anti-child pornography angle to her tweets. Even sympathetic sources mention Walton. --DHeyward (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The specific reasoning you attribute to Walton in your edits, e.g. saying that Walton believes Rapp is a pedophilia apologist. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed and replaced with quoted language in the source. --DHeyward (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The President Of The United States, on Gamergate

The President himself has now referred to Gamergate’s harassment of women.

Responding to this "epidemic of online harassment", President of the United States Barack Obama said that "We know that women gamers face harassment and stalking and threats of violence from other players. When they speak out about their experiences, they’re attacked on Twitter and other social media outlets, even threatened in their homes." [7]

The discussion proceeds at some length. When an obscure right-wing pundit finds an arguably-reliable publication (or Breitbart) to praise Gamergate, we fall over ourselves to include it. The rest of the time, we listen to Gamergate recruits ring the changes here about how this page "is bias".

Why are the President's observations thought to be of no interest to readers of the encyclopedia, when we are so endlessly fascinated by obscure right-wing columnists? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

(Transferred from my own section which was edit conflicted!) Hi all, recently Dr. Bernstein added a quote by president Obama, which Rhoark removed and transferred to the cyberbullying article. I understand why Rhoark thinks the reference irrelevant, but I think it certainly belongs in this article as well. Couched as it is by "last week I was at SXSW...." it seems to me there can be little doubt that gamergate is at least tangentially implicated in his thoughts. As such, I would reinstate it, though I am not sure where best to do so. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It was a sentence not about Gamergate that was a brief aside in a set of remarks not about Gamergate. SXSW is hardly sufficient connection, since it had a whole day of panels about harassment and not Gamergate. We have several reliable sources saying even Brianna Wu's panel was not about Gamergate, and that the Gamergate panel was not about harassment. Making this connection is pleading special insight into President Obama's thoughts. Rhoark (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, the noble Gamergate movement for great ethics has always been against the harassment of female gamers, how silly of me. Dumuzid (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Precisely the behavior we have come to expect here. If an unknown right-wing pundit says that some anonymous Gamergater claims, off the record, to have opposed the harassment campaign, that’s cause to declare Gamergate a movement (see above) and met with trumpets and cheers. The President deplores, in the context of a "summit" panel about Gamergate, the way gamers have been harassed, threatened, and driven from their homes -- activities clearly documented here -- but we pretend otherwise. Brianna Wu’s panel was not only about Gamergate, but of course Brianna Wu is among the women driven from their homes to whom the President was referring. To echo Dumuzid: this is an example right here of what Gamergate considers to be ethical journalism. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The remarks don't mention Gamergate, but does talk about "gamers" and SXSW. It seems plausible to assume that the remark was about about Gamergate, even if it wasn't mentioned by name (perhaps some sources can be rustled up?). This was just a brief aside in general remarks over treatment women in online world, and no specific action was suggested by Obama. I don't really see what makes it newsworthy, but the page already has a lot of useless material, so I don't think it does much harm. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

He doesn't say the word "Gamergate" but what he describes is exactly what happened in Gamergate. Can you think of another incident or sequence of events that he could be referring to? I'd be interesting to hear about another incident where women gamers face harassment and stalking and threats of violence from other players. When they speak out about their experiences, they’re attacked on Twitter and other social media outlets, even threatened in their homes that had NOTHING to do with Gamergate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Silly Liz! Of 'course' it has nothing to do with Gamergate! All those women doxxed and harassed 'themselves'! There are a couple blog posts that prove it, and if there aren't, we can make some.--Jorm (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Please leave the snark at the door and use the talk pages for their intended purpose, Jorm. Marteau (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The Pew poll found 4.4% of women sampled had been harassed in an online game. Extrapolating that to the population of US women, that would be 6.9 million individuals. So, yes, there is apparently a lot of harassing women in games that has nothing to do with Gamergate. Here's a specific one.[8] Rhoark (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You've opined on many occasions on how Gamergate is connected to just about everything that crosses your mind, but I don't think you've thought through how such an approach to editing would impact the article. Shall we just get done with it and transclude Brianna Wu, Dylan Roof, and Margaret Sanger? Rhoark (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe Gamergate harassed Margaret Sanger. Of course, the connection to Brianna Wu is obvious, and the connection to Dylan Roof is attested by Dylan Roof, who ought to know. But you know what? My editorial stance here has earned praise from newspapers and journals all over the world, and Rhoark's taunts are sanctionable. AE is thataway--> MarkBernstein (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

While still extraneous, its inclusion is acceptable when its contextually clear that its relation to the topic is completely transitive by way of SXSW. I've made that change, and no one seems to have objected so far. Rhoark (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I ctrl F'd gamergate and got 0 results. Original research is clearly afoot. This obviously should not be in here (per the whole no original research thingamabobam, so I'm removing it. Brustopher (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, you haven't described a violation of Wikipedia's policy on original research, you have just described a violation of Brustopher's policy on magic words. Dumuzid (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

M8, my magic word policy is the definition of original research. People in this talk section through analysis (dare I say research) of a primary source have concluded that it is about Gamergate. The source in question never mentions gamergate, just video game online harassment, a phenomenon endemic since the time online vidya began. We have no secondary sources provided saying that Obama is talking about Gamergate. To quote directly from the WP:OR policy Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. In conclusion: you are wrong, my magic word policy is amazing and I should be made godking of Wikipedia. Brustopher (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Brustopher is right. Not all on-line harassment of women is "Gamergate" and the linking of Obama's words with Gamergate without a reliable source to do it is indeed original research. Marteau (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

So President Obama is a primary source for gamergate? This is fascinating to me. But clearly I am wrong about much. Dumuzid (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

President Obama is a primary source for President Obama's words. Interperation of those words requires a secondary source or else it is original research. Brustopher (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ahh, now I see. By the same token, the New York Times must be a primary source for the New York Times's words. So those have to be filtered through a secondary source. So much revision to do! Dumuzid (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that the source being used was the Whitehouse website. We need an independent secondary source connecting his speech with this article's topic. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

God-king Noticeboard is -> thataway

Rhoark (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

While I am not in favor of the content, as a principle I think relatedness can be established transitively, that is to say if reliable sources establish Topic A is related to Topic B, then claims about Topic B may appear in Article A. That's assuming the claim improves understanding of Topic A; otherwise its a WP:COATRACK. Rhoark (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Are we really trying to say Obama was talking about GamerGate in his speech? At least Justin Trudeau actually said it in an interview. But this is the basic definition of grasping at straws, people. Not everything is about GamerGate. GamerPro64 04:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Per my edit summary: We include opinions where notable. I think the President of the United States is a bit notable (maybe? I might be overreaching? xXGameDude420Xx may have a more notable opinion on his youtube channel?) PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue here, of course, is not the notability of everything Obama says (because Obama says it, naturally) but the linkage of his words with Gamergate. There was plenty of harassment of women on-line prior to 2015, and linking harassment to Gamergate, without a reliable source doing the linking, is clearly original research. Marteau (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

But even if Obama was thinking of some other instance in which female gamers were driven from their homes, I believe the quote still belongs in the article. The reason is simple: Obama is decrying an effect which we have lots of secondary sources linking to gamergate. He need not be referring to any specific instance in order to make it relevant to this article. I'd be fine with a qualifier like "Without mentioning Gamergate, president Obama decried harassment...." or such. I don't want to delve in to the debate over how endemic harassment is to gamergate, but the secondary sources tell us gamergate is strongly associated with harassment. President Obama went out of his way to mention (if not gamergate) the specific form of harassment with which gamergate is associated. Even if the president has never heard the term, that strikes me as a relevant bit of information to include here. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/troll-busters-online-harassment/ MarkBernstein (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Odd. Countless reverts of this addition because 'Obama's not talking about Gamergate, he's just talking about some other contemporary campaign of harassment against women that is totally unrelated to our ethical harassment campaign', and now that MarkBernstein has found an RS that explicitly links it to Gamergate... Starke Hathaway reverts it anyway, just because. Great. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Dot is reliable and the article MarkBernstein links does seem to provide linkage between Gamergate and the President's words. I've restored his version. Marteau (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed I did revert "just because" the Daily Dot article does not state that the President's remarks pertained to Gamergate. The linked sources discusses both the president's remarks and Gamergate in the larger context of online harassment. If there is an "explicit link" in that article, as you say, perhaps you could do us the kindness of quoting it here. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, I concur with Starke Hathaway on this point - while the Daily Dot source[9] mentions both Gamergate and Obama's comments on online harassment - no link is made between the two in that article. If editors opinions differ, I support and also make the request for an explicit link to be quoted here. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Torchiest, I would politely ask that you self-revert to restore the reference to the SXSW discussion. While you may be right that the secondary source doesn't make a direct connection, the President himself does. He says "Last Friday, I was at South by Southwest, where the epidemic of online harassment was a topic of discussion." We certainly don't need a secondary source for the context of an opinion when the opinion itself provides it. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. done. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I agree strongly here with Liz, above, who wisely commented: "He doesn't say the word "Gamergate" but what he describes is exactly what happened in Gamergate. Can you think of another incident or sequence of events that he could be referring to? I'd be interesting to hear about another incident where women gamers face harassment and stalking and threats of violence from other players. When they speak out about their experiences, they’re attacked on Twitter and other social media outlets, even threatened in their homes that had NOTHING to do with Gamergate.". This statement by Liz is a most apt analysis, unfortunately, of historical behavior patterns relating to the Gamergate social movement, online. — Cirt (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, prior to Aug 2014, there were several documented cases of harassment in the video game industry, including women; Zoe Quinn had been harassed prior to this on the original release of Depression Quest, which only intensified with the start of GG, and there's a name of a female video game journalist who's name I can't immediately recall but who was chased out of that field because of harassing statements to her opinions prior to GG. These problems have been known in the industry has been known for several years. It simply wasn't documented to the degree GG has been and put into the spotlight, forcing the industry to deal with it. I would agree that it is highly likely that the President's words are in relation to GG, but it is not 100% obvious that it is if the term never came up. Take in contrast to Rep. Clark's proposed legislation which while it doesn't mention GG, she's been extremely clear that her proposed measures are needed to fight harassment from GG, so it's reasonable to tie these legislative actions acts to GG. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Carolyn Petit maybe? There was quite a bit of noise about her review of GTAV. — Strongjam (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That might have been it (I also recall Jenn Frank, but her departure was due to her comments at the start of GG). The point is that harassment and misogyny were not isolated events and never existed before GG, but something the industry knew about but hadn't really taken proactive steps to deal with. Also another point: nothing about the harassment attributed to GG is directed at a broad range of gamers, but only to people in the game journalism and development side (who are game players obviously, but are not whom one would normally called "gamers" in this context here). Female gamers get harassed and threatened in general: there are plenty of articles on the "boys' club" that the video game community negatively propagates including the use of harassment, and there are clear ties of the misogyny between those attitudes and the perceived attitudes of GG supporters, but I have not seen any reliable source demonstrate that that the average non-notable gamer that has been directly harassed through Gamergate. So it's still doing a bit of coatrack to attach the President's statement to this. One can say that the SXSW panels on harassment were organized in part due to GG (that can be easily sourced), and the President spoke to the challenge of combat online harassment in the gaming community (which clearly includes the GG controversy), but to say he was speaking directly about GG is a coatrack. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

But Masem, because the President was specifically referencing the SXSW panels, can't we say his words reference gamergate to the extent the panels themselves do? Dumuzid (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

We know the panels at SXSW were scheduled in part to address the situation from GG but were not only reason these panels were planned. The President clearly spoke to online harassment in the gaming community but that doesn't logically connect his words to GG. I think it would be fair to say something like "The 2016 SXSW event included a summit featuring panels related to the problems with online harassment, including panels related to the GamerGate controversy. President Obama, speaking to the summit and responding to this "epidemic of online harassment", said "We know that women gamers face harassment and stalking and threats of violence from other players. When they speak out about their experiences, they’re attacked on Twitter and other social media outlets, even threatened in their homes."" I feel that's a tiniest bit of a coatrack but acceptable, and far from directly saying the President's speaking about GG. This is appropriate in the context that GG has heightened awareness of online harassment in the gaming community. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, right: "Female gamers get harassed and threatened in general." And if they complain, we will organize to use Wikipedia, among other channels, to publicize their sex lives. So sad, too bad. When the President of the United States deplores this harassment, our resident Gamergaters invent a wall of text because the President didn't actually use the hashtag, although the meaning of his remarks is unmistakable. (This is the same logic, by the way, that argued that sending rape cartoons to female software developers could not be described as Gamergate harassment because no static image can unambiguously depict rape. Funny coincidence, isn't it?) MarkBernstein (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc! for dragging that hoary old chestnut out of the annals of vague misrepresentation to which it should have been permanently assigned (See [10][11][12]; ctrl+f "piccolo").
To be clear, the argument is that the colours green and purple, either singularly or in combination, do not in and of themselves, as an inate property, covey, act or serve as a rape threat or harassment. That a cartoon image of a red-haired woman clothed in those colours does not covey, act or serve as a rape threat or harassment, simply by virtue of being so enhued. That this is so despite those colours being chosen due to the cartoon character's association with the 4chan image board "/v/"; and those colours being associated with "/v/" due to repeated "daily dose" postings on that board of an animated image of one purple clothed, green skinned, male alien character vigorously embuggering another male character (See [13]). That the quality of buggery is not transitive.
> [redacting] Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

[redacting] PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's about time we stop bringing up "sex lives of female gamers" on the talk page. No one's proposing that we put it in the article. It's not a topic we're going to debate. If that's the reason you're here, you should probably find another hobby or reread all the times it's been mentioned in archives and never been put in the article. --DHeyward (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. Put an end to this, and all the other forms of arguing against things that no one here is arguing for. Rhoark (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

A suggestion from an infrequent editor of this page: If President Obama made comments about protests of police shootings of African Americans, but somehow didn't say "Black Lives Matter," it wouldn't require several pages of debate to decide whether the comments belong on that page. Wikilawyering and pedantry aren't helpful to making an encyclopedia.--Carwil (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a different situation though: the number of "protests of police shooting of African Americans" is small, and the only one that is widely known is Black Lives Matter. So if he state that, it's very likely the words were specifically in reference to BLM, though there's still enough vagueness that it could be a coatrack issue. For this specific situation, "harassment of female gamers" is a very broad statement, and what direct relationship that is to GG is very weak (as the harassment that is attributed to GG is stated to be at female members of the industry/press side of video games, and not to the average game player). As such, saying that the President's speech was directly related to GG is definitely a coatrack, and careless inclusion just because it seems to be about GG is not neutral. But as I mentioned above, the fact that SXSW had session panels dedicated to discussion the growing situation about harassment in the gaming community, which includes what has resulted from GG, and that the President commented on that factor, is far less a coatrack and could be included as long as it is tied to SXSW's panels. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The only case of women gamers being harassed that has spilled over into mainstream consciousness is Gamergate. Please tell me what other case of harassment the President could be talking about. Kaldari (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Carwl: More directly, try to add "Obama supported the acquittal or George Zimmerman when he said he respected the rule of law." Or infer condemnation of BLM for speaking out against riots in Baltimore based solely on the inference that BLM was somehow responsible for riots. Ain't going to get that far so there isn't endless debate. So the question here is "Why does that inference crap keep trying to get added here?" --17:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)