Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Minor edit

Near the end of the article it says this: "This has been denied by 4Chan." Could a friendly administrator edit it to "4chan"? The C isn't capitalized ever. Minor request I know but this article is protected. Bluefist ^talk 00:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The claim "this has been denied by 4chan" is nonsensical; 4chan isn't a single entity and doesn't reflect a unified POV. Literally anyone can post on 4chan and it doesn't even require account creation (in fact, the culture of 4chan strongly encourages people not to identify themselves in any way, although a rudimentary system for doing so is provided). Saying "this has been denied by 4chan" is like saying "this has been denied by Reddit" or "this has been denied by Twitter" or "this has been denied by editors of Wikipedia". 70.24.5.250 (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Another minor edit request

At the end it says "Zoe Quinn has stated that GamerGate was manufactured by members of 4chan operating on a private channel specifically to attack her and her followers for her feminist views"

The IRC channel itself isn't private (it isn't password protected), anyone can go to Rizon and log in without even registering an username.Loganmac (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"Private" here could also mean one not well broadcasted. Mind you, we're stating what Quinn has claimed; if that's wrong from her end, there's no fault on us for that. --MASEM (t) 02:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

it's just an irc chan an anonymous person promoted multiple times in public threads on 4chan /v/ to talk about the Zoe Quinn thing 46.193.129.176 (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This is true, though I'm not sure how much emphasis we should put on any one given thing. How long is this article going to end up? Claims of a conspiracy theory from Quinn have been covered in the press, as have claims of a conspiracy theory from the GamerGater types, but we should probably avoid WP:UNDUE prominence for them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This should be deleted

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.

---

Honestly this entire article should just be deleted considering how misinformed and bias it is. I know i've said this already but the POV pushing here is more blatant than I thought I would have found on wikipedia. 71.190.17.153 (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You can make your thoughts known here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GamerGate. However, supposed bias is not a reason to delete. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@71.190.17.153:It is notable. The article needs to be improved, not deleted. It does have some issues at present, but we're working on ironing them out. If you feel that it is biased, expressing how you think it is biased and how we can correct it would be helpful. Feel free to stay here and join in on the process! Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

YOU think its notable, WP:NOTNEWS says otherwise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:51, 10 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.

Sources for GG

So after learning about WP:RS, I looked for some indie outlets that covered this story, and found some sources that could be used. They highlight GG's view of the situation, just a forewarning. There is quite a lot of content in each, so quoting everything would be to much. I included specific quotes from each article just to give an overview of some of the content.

(Speculative)gamenosh: Fraud in the Indie World? – FEZ Investors outed as Judges for Title’s Awards

"Recent information that has come to light in wake of the hacking of Polytron’s website reveals that several investors of FEZ have a direct connection with the IGF and IndieCade and could potentially have had a hand in the allocation of the awards."

"As it stands with the current information; there are 8+ people with a financial investment in FEZ that were directly involved with the judging process of the IGF awards."

digitimes : Commentary: Time is running out for console makers to clean up GamerGate

"What started out as an innocuous sex and bribery scandal involving, among others, a blogger at one of the gaming sectors' leading bloggs, exploded into controversy when those attempting to discuss the allegations were silenced on numerous seemingly unrelated gaming forums as well as link aggregators such as reddit.

"Outraged at the perceived lack of ethical standards erupted across social media eliciting an indignant response from a significant portion of the gaming press that "those complaining didn't understand how the industry worked". "

"However, this attempt to paint the angry gamers as a bunch of sexist, homophobic, racist males who were raging at being forced to "become politically correct" was rapidly rebuked by females, homosexuals, transsexuals and other minorities who all consider themselves gamers in the thousands using the Twitter hashtag #notyourshield."

- TFYC was a project that was developed a while ago to get more women developers into game development. There was a controversy with Zoe Quinn basically spreading negative rumors and ruining their chance. When #GamerGate started, they were at less than five thousands dollars, and now it is almost at full funding, mainly from 4chan and reddit.

apgnation: TRUTH IN GAMING: AN INTERVIEW WITH THE FINE YOUNG CAPITALISTS

"Zoe Quinn then began a Twitter discussion, which can be seen here. But the major points is she DDoS’d our site, she called us exploitative, and her PR manager Maya Felix Kramer posted my Facebook information which Zoe replied to, alerting her followers. Due to this, I received a death threat. "

techcrunch : Indiegogo Campaign Hacked This Weekend, But Wasn’t Part Of A Widespread Attack

"Reddit was the first place to notice the change, which took place over the weekend. The page in question was a campaign led by a group called The Fine Young Capitalists (TFYC), which ultimately was about raising awareness of the issues surrounding women in gaming, by generating funds that would pay the salaries of several female game developers to make any game they wanted – ostensibly those free from the typical sexism when it comes to female character development. Meanwhile, profits from the games produced were to go to cancer research."

"This attack was not one of hackers looking to take on Indiegogo as a whole, but was related to a specific online controversy between gamers and their supporters which TFYC was involved in. The narrative involves Zoe Quinn, the game developer who was reportedly sexually harassed. Further details came out after news about her story hit that put her claims into question." PseudoSomething (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart does not meet WP:RS criteria. Can't speak to the others as I'm not familiar with them. Gamaliel (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me why? It would help me understand a few things, probably. PseudoSomething (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS requires "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Breitbart has the opposite reputation, frequently engaging in factually inaccurate character assassination. It is completely unsuitable for use in Wikipedia articles. Gamaliel (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

We can't use apgnation (not an established RS), nor gamesnosh (not an established RS), nor What Culture (it's a clickbait site, though I've seen that article and there are some points it would be nice to try to back up with other articles.) Techcrunch and Digitimes seem legit. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"We can't use What Culture" because "it's a clickbait site"; but we can use Kotaku and BuzzFeed?! 70.24.5.250 (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Well it looks like so far, with about 16 hours in WP:RSN, apgnation would be ok to use since it is a direct interview, but gamenosh looks to be self published, so it isn't reliable. PseudoSomething (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well crud. I am trying to find independent sources. Would apg not be a good source though, considering it is a full interview with TFYC, who were part of the catalyst and consequence of GG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PseudoSomething (talk • contribs) 23:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The RS noticeboard would be a good place to ask about sources that we are unsure about here. Gamaliel (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha, I posted over there about the two articles. Thank you for pointing me that way. PseudoSomething (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What about Cinemablend? http://www.cinemablend.com/games/TFYC-Discuss-GamerGate-Recovering-From-Hacks-4chan-Support-67239.html Edit: they're being used as an RS elsewhere on this talk page. They even do some original research to verify Matthew's (The Fine Young Capitalists') claims. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Like Paste, it's an opinionated website so I wouldn't use it unattributed ("According to <blank> on CinemaBlend, TFYC said X") but I think it's a fair way to source TFYC's point of view. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Article was fine but changed to an extremely biased view now

I checked two days ago and this article was pretty neutral, yet now there's barely any mention of the journalistic corruption aspect of the controversy It's funny that the Eric Kain article is used to include that the movement is anti-feminist but doesn't include the numerous parts where it speaks about DMCA takedowns, The Fine Young Capitalist hacking, harassment against John Bain, and radio silence from the press, and censoring on reddit.

The line " They are tired of being dictated to by writers they refer to as social justice warriors, interested more in the issues of representation and sociocultural meaning in games and game development, then the content itself."

Was removed

As well as the line "leading to accusations of violations of journalistic ethics due to close relationship between development studios and games critics"

I really want a neutral article, I'm not against deleting mentions of harassment against Quinn or Phil Fish, nor that some comments were misogynist, but as it is the article makes it seem like the movement was started just to harass Zoe Quinn which can't be farther from the truth as various sources point out.

We all know these articles always get raided by radicals (from places known as FYAD, weird twitter, etc), as it is now it appears editors let them do as they pleasedLoganmac (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Right now the article is protected, and I will site Masem as a specific here, but a few people are working through the article to try and make sure it is balanced because of the unique nature. The best thing you can do is find good sources. I am new to Wikipedia myself, but good sources are the way the article is going to be changed, so dig around. The article is up for deletion also (my preference, but cus I am new I wont vote), so we can hope for that also. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

We cover how the reliable sources cover the subject The reliable sources see this for what it is: #PUDGATE a bunch of dicks creating an astroturf campaign to harass women, and so that is how we present it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"The reliable sources see this for what it is"; i.e. you treat them as truthful not because of any critical thinking but because you agree with them. Your POV is readily apparent here. Meanwhile, the Wikipedia article takes a further biased selection of the contents of those articles. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

That view is dishonest though, since in this situation, the reliable sources are the ones the common voice are against. I said it farther up in the thread, is that not an issue to you? Is there seriously no protocol for that? PseudoSomething (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

But that's not what the only view is. It is what it seems at the surfaces, but numerous sources we've gotten to add once unprotected dig in to other factors. There is no evidence this is only a campaign to astroturf, though certainly that did happen. --MASEM (t) 03:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no "campaign to astroturf". That notion is prima facie absurd; accusing 4chan of astroturfing makes no more sense than accusing Reddit (or Twitter, or Tumblr, or Facebook) of doing so, because 4chan isn't some big business concern, and harassing women on the internet cannot possibly lead to monetary gain for 4chan. Nobody is seriously suggesting that any of this is happening at Christopher Poole's behest. To accuse "a bunch of dicks" of astroturfing is even more ridiculous. By definition, even if everyone involved were motivated purely by misogyny (which is absolutely counter-factual), an action of this sort coordinated by "a bunch of dicks" is grass-roots. The term "astroturfing" is being used here without regard to factual accuracy, as a pejorative descriptor for "social movement I don't like". The only way there could plausibly be "astroturfing" going on here is if it were false-flag astroturfing by feminist organizations, hoping to increase the public perception of misogyny on the internet being a problem, in order to collect more donations. I am not alleging that to be true; I think it is false. But that's the only viable candidate for "astroturfing" here. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because Zoe Quinn claims it is an astroturfing harassment campaign doesn't mean it is one; a considerable number of sources have noted that it is not, including the Telegraph, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Business Insider, Slate, Digitimes, ect. Indeed, several have claimed that the claims of such are an attempt to deflect criticism of corruption in the industry, as well as of the behavior of the people involved. That one of the groups involved claims it to be such is very much noteworthy, but it ain't fact. Remember, Wikipedia adopts a NPOV; adopting the point of view of one side in a conflict is generally inappropriate. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far, there have been (a maybe still more to come) many articles that come from not only one side of the debate and the other, but even neutral or purely analytical articles. Unlike other Wiki articles where there are stretched attempts to add non-reliable sources or non-notable information (like Anita's page), I can foresee this article eventually becoming well balanced given the sheer abundance. So anyone coming here afresh with their immediate concerns should not be worry. Protecting this article is a good idea, we really just need cooler heads later down the line. Frankly Man (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

ER

Please change opening words to: "Gamergate (often referred to by the hashtag #GamerGate)..." I'm finding more (recent, anyway) sources that use #GamerGate than GamerGate, but we don't even mention it, and cite only one of them so far (probably because the article is fully protected, something I'm going to address at WP:RFPP).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No, that's just a twitter thing. We'll mention that this involves social media, and there are important hashtags, but we don't adopt twitter naming schemes for articles. --MASEM (t) 04:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hashtags haven't been "just a twitter thing" in years. Under a rock? I repeat: Reliable sources refer to it as "#GamerGate", so the name least has to be accounted for. This is not an article rename proposals.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Copy editing

Would someone mind doing a little copy editing?

Quinn and her family were subsequently targeted by [a] campaign of harassment

as were supporters such as game developer Phil Fish, [and] internet commentator John Bain.

David Auerbach of Slate argued the case was a example of a fair number of gamers who hate the journalists who cover videogames, and the journalists hate the videogame-players [it was a case of a fair number of gamers hating the journalists who cover videogames, and the journalists hating the videogamers].

In similarity with [Like] Alexander, Auerbach promoted the culture of video-games was changing but it was [asserts gaming culture is changing but it is] the ordinary video-game journalist that were [is] being phased out.

This has been denied by 4Chan [4chan].

(Just a copy edit. No comment on the worth of the content.)

Cheers! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems uncontroversial, so  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor edit request: Rephrase closing sentence about 4Chan denial

I find the article pleasantly neutral, and I am happy to see it has been locked and moderated. However, the closing sentence is a little misleading. It currently states: "This has been denied by 4Chan (25)". I believe that as 4Chan is not a single person or entity, and after having read the referenced source, a more proper sentence would be: "This has been denied by several 4Chan users (25)". Or something along those lines, to reflect the fact that 4Chan as an entity or person has not responded, and that no single person or group of persons can represent 4Chan as a whole. SplatMan DK (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That I fixed, that's reasonable.--MASEM (t) 14:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks :-) SplatMan DK (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It is locked so who edits it? also, article contains flaws that need to be fixed.

The is locked so that only mods can edit it? But what if said mods are biased? That said, here are a couple of things that by wikia standards need to be fixed in the article:

A number of commentators within and without the games industry denounced the attack on Quinn as misogynistic and unfounded.

The above line from the article needs to be elaborated on as "a number" can mean anything from 2 too a thousand. Further, the identity of these people actually bare relevance to the article as their political interest and dogma is important. Why are they claiming the attack to be misogynistic? Was it because they are feminists? Have they written other blogs/articles about misogyny? What exactly do they consider to be misogyny? all these things are important and needs to be considered in this article. Further:

Notably, Fish found himself "doxxed" after speaking in support of Quinn,

The above needs to have "supposedly" added to "found" as there have been absolutely zero evidence that he was doxxed but instead a lot of evidence suggesting he just pretended to be doxxed. Until it has actually been proven one way or another, the claim that he was doxxed should either be removed or amended to say "supposedly"--Thronedrei (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Why are they claiming the attack to be misogynistic? --- uhhhh ..... you seem familiar with the subject and your are confused about how and why "misogyny"? really? and someone identifying misogyny has to be a feminists? pffff. more of the #Pudgate of dicks astroturfing harassment attempting to masquerade as something else. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"Someone identifying misogyny has to be a feminist?" I could just as easily ask, "someone attacking a woman has to be a misogynist?". 70.24.5.250 (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The number is large but unquantifyable so "a number" is fair; there's nothing wrong saying that several people in the industry felt the attacks were misogynistic, as that is part of the reason why more of those on the GG side have spoke out that the issue is beyond misogyny and more about transparency. Additionally, there is very little doubt in the press about Fish's doxxing (yes, I have read some of the reasons that some have said he might have faked it) and there's no reliable sourcing that explains why it might have been a hoax. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

One thing to keep an eye on is whether or not we should list every individual involved in this per WP:BLPNAME and WP:HARASS. Phil Fish and John Bain are both notable persons, for instance, but a lot of other people were doxxed as well, and I'm not sure if we should give special emphasis to any individual who isn't otherwise important, though if Phil Fish actually carries through with his threat it would probably be notable. The problem is that Phil Fish has something of a history of overreaction and grand, dramatic gestures; he has "cancelled" Fez 2 previously after engaging in flame wars with people on the internet, which would make this much less notable if it was just him blowing up again. On the other hand, it might be that Phil Fish would be worth noting precisely because he has attacked gamers on the internet in the past much as he did here, which might be something worth noting in a background section leading up to the controversy. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that we should only include targets' names if they are notable, and they personalty have self-identified themselves as targets via very reliable sources, as to avoid BLP issues on that. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it important to mention everyone who was a target? Is it not enough to mention that there were several/many targets, and then just mention a few of them as examples? I am not opposed as such to include them, I am just wondering how that would add anything important to the article. This whole debacle is really interesting in terms of contemporary cultural development - both for "gamers", "internet movements" and social media. It's great that Wikipedia already has an article on it and that it is moderated so it can be developed slowly and with proper editing. But I don't think it needs to mention every target that is also a "notable" person. SplatMan DK (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor edit suggestion: Change sentence on Sarkeesian death threats

After having read the sources, I believe the sentence about Sarkeesians death threats should be changed slightly. The original sentence is: ""Sarkeesian reported receiving death threats that forced her to temporarily leave her home". However, the BBC story quoted for this is obviously not fact-checking the actual threats but only quoting Sarkeesian. And the article has a softer phrasing which I believe this article should adopt. BBC uses the phrase "compelled to leave her home" as opposed to "forced to leave her home". I think there is a huge difference. Being "forced" signals that the threats are heavily substantiated and that authorities or legal counsel told her to leave. Being "compelled" is something less, in the sence that it can simply be something you decide to do. It can, in theory (since we don't really know) be an overreaction to a bunch of trolling. As such, I believe the wiki article should adopt the phrasing used in the BBC article quoted, so that it becomes something along the lines of: ""Sarkeesian reported receiving death threats that compelled her to temporarily leave her home". SplatMan DK (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion, and I have made that change. This still would include if there were ones that threatened her at her home address, but best I can read, it was basically she was getting death threats, and they knew her address, but that doesn't mean the threats forced her to leave her home. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought that was a good idea and I'm happy to see the change was implemented. Thanks! 212.88.0.67 (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) SplatMan DK (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong link

The John Bain link doesn't link to the right John Bain... 67.204.238.12 (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --MASEM (t) 05:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

EP request

{{editprotected}}

Please add the following to a Further Reading section:

• Zaid Jilani (8 September 2014). ""I want a straight white male gaming convention": Inside the culture war raging in the video gaming world". Salon.com. Retrieved 12 September 2014.
• Sarah Kaplan (12 September 2014). "With #GamerGate, the video-game industry's growing pains go viral". Washington Post. Retrieved 12 September 2014.
• William Usher (11 September 2014). "EA Admits 40,000 Users Were Hacked After Whistleblower Steps Forward". Cinemablend.com. Retrieved 12 September 2014.
• Jordan Ephraim (10 September 2014). "10 Lessons The Gaming Industry Must Learn From #GamerGate". WhatCulture!. Retrieved 12 September 2014.
• David Hollingworth (12 September 2014). "The inherent flaws of GamerGate". PC & Tech Authority. Retrieved 12 September 2014.
• Radhika Sanghani (10 September 2014). "Misogyny, death threats and a mob of trolls: Inside the dark world of video games with Zoe Quinn - target of #GamerGate". The Telegraph. Retrieved 12 September 2014. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Thanks, JMP EAX (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

WhatCulture is not a reliable source here (additionally, it is also very biased here). Most of the other sources have been identified and will be added (See discussions above) once we can edit the article. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree that WhatCulture is not useful here. CinemaBlend is also not particularly high quality, and Usher appears to have a very distinct bias based on his other articles on the subject. When a lower profile online source's coverage is so wildly different from every mainstream publication available as well as most other online sources we need to be careful about using it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, the EA hack is documented here [1], but what hasn't happened yet is for that to come up in direct connection to GG. I mean, it is about transparency or lack thereof, but save for the CB article, no other RS has said this is part of it, so I agree we should not include that, yet. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Now we need more than one RS to introduce anything pro-GG to an article about GG? This seems like goalpost-shifting.

oppose blanket "further reading". if these are reliable sources, specific content should be proposed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree - taking out the non-RS ones, the rest are good for inline citations, and should not be delegated to general reading. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the direct connection towards the EA hack and the movement. Even checking the threads on /v/ and on some subreddits doesn't pull up a whole lot. WhatCulture isn't reliable, and some info from Washington Post and PC & Tech Authority (that one only reinforcing the Escapist article) can be used. Citation Needed | Citation Needed 18:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

CinemaBlend is already cited on more than a thousand Wikipedia pages, and WhatCulture on a couple hundred more. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Based on this discussion, I am declining this editprotected request for now. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I disagree with some of those sources too. But the "policy" that some Wikipedia contributors apply is: "disagrees with me == not reliable". Which is why I usually don't edit articles like this. Too many talibans... Now feel fucking offended and topic ban me. JMP EAX (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request - Responses

{{editprotected}}

This news site was doing a interview with Daniel Vavra, a key developer for Kingdom Come: Deliverance. Basically, he gives a different perspective of GamerGate from the majority of mainstream sources being used, and it could potentially be used on the responses section to address concerns of blacklisting from journalists and other people. I feel like this can help balance out the article a tad bit towards NPOV. http://techraptor.net/2014/09/12/interview-daniel-vavra/ Citation Needed | . 17:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

For one, we should only be focusing on fixing major problems while this is edit protected, aware that we need to add many new sources identified in that time. The problem here is that techraptor doesn't appear to be an RS, and while I've seen mention of Vavra's comments, that's just one dev. It might prompt more to speak out, but that's it. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Based on this discussion, I am declining this request for now. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request: Major Overhaul

Article highly biased and one-faced on the entire issue. According to many gamers, and supporters of the tag #GamerGate, it's about the corruption in gaming journalism, but as for this article, the only mention of that is at the very beginning of the article. The rest is just reports of Harassment exclusively from the supporters of the #GamerGate, never noting there has been harassment form the opposing party (see the tumblr 'GamerGate Harassment', which collects sceencaps from the "Anti-GamerGate" fellows: http://gamergateharrassment.tumblr.com/). And even accordingly, the articles never go into such detail as to why "4chan" denied the screencaps Zoe Quinn took of the public IRC, nor does it give validity to how the harassment towards Anita Sarkeesian is directly linked to the movement other than the circumstance that they happened at the same time #GamerGate began. In short, this entire article is just a list of harassment and threats that supposedly came from the #GamerGate tag. Rather than what it should be, an elaboration of the the entire issue and reports from both sides. I request a MAJOR overhaul of this article to actually focus on the actual 'issue' the movement is calling for and more reporting on the issue from both sides. Rather than how it's been a one-sided report list. Derpen (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

A Tumblr is not a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

So the Screencaps posted aren't reliable? How would that make them any more reliable than Zoe Quinn's screencaps from twitter on the "4chan IRC:?--Derpen (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Quinn's screencaps are mentioned in reliable sources, with analysis including both sides of the debate over those screencaps. I see that you're new to Wikipedia — I suggest that you read our verifiability and reliable sources policies and guidelines. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

We're not considering Quinn's screencaps as reliable either. Or more to the matter, we are going to let secondary sources determine how we should approach the evidence there, with all we can right now that Quinn claims they show an organized effort, and some of 4chan's users debunk the claim. --MASEM (t) 20:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Becuase they are so controversial, I really think we should ignore Quinn's screencaps. They don't exactly 'prove' anything, and again, 'denied by some members of 4Chan' make them seem more reliable than it is. The truth is that ANYONE could have posted, I know for a fact that several devs were logged on (they told me) and that since it's anonymous, it's impossible to tell who said what and can't pin it on anyone. - Squidly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.0.72.115 (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no point for us to get into the weeds of what the logs claim to have or are claimed not to have - we do need to note that she claimed that she had evidence via these logs, some of 4chan claimed they showed nothing. That's all we have to say at this point. There are some things a savvy reader than infer for themselves but we shouldn't go into that any more (particularly as that starts hitting BLP issues). --MASEM (t) 03:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The article is fully protected, and as you can read from the above sections, we are fully planning on trying to write a balanced account with many more reliable sources point out above (including those that identify the gamers' side of the issue). But this is not something that can be done by an editrequest. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to propose a section to be added or rewritten, please feel free to write something up, present it and gain consensus for the edit to be made. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Any discussion of GamerGate supposedly being about "corruption" should note the reliable sources pointing out the complainers' complete disinterest in actual corruption:

"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." [2]

"It is exactly these kinds of connections that #gamergate is attacking. Not the corporate interests of PR and journalism outlets, but the personal networks and contacts utterly vital to reporting on and being aware of a vibrant and diverse culture of creators beyond the interest of commercial publishers. They don’t care that Sony gets bands like the Foo Fighters to play at massive parties each year at the trade show, E3, to an audience predominately made up of invited journalists. But the fact that a writer for Kotaku lived with some developers whose free game she later wrote about is apparently a sign of deep corruption. They are furious that a game critic, whose job is to inform a readership about happenings in games culture, would have publicly disclosed personal friendships in that culture." [3]

Gamaliel (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel, are you being intentionally inflammatory? There are plenty of articles that do make the case that GamerGate is, at least in part, about corruption. Do a better job of being neutral. Willhesucceed (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This is what reliable sources say. You are welcome to present other sources if you feel a perspective is missing from the article. Gamaliel (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request: Addition

May need to add something on this: GamerGate leads to Suicide Prevention Charity http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/137409-GamerGate-Leads-to-Suicide-Prevention-Charity Derpen (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please propose a specific edit and reach consensus. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that this fundraiser is in response to Breitbart's accusations that Quinn wasn't actually donating any of Depression Quest's proceeds to charity, which lead among other things to ongoing harassment of nonprofit employees by angry internet jerks, I think we should hold off and see if the gets any more coverage, and preferably from some stronger sources. It's been less than a day, there's no rush. -- 68.50.78.0 (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

"Stronger sources" than the Escapist? While Kotaku is already used as a source for the article? (Edit: The Escapist, itself, is also already being used as a source.) 70.24.5.250 (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a contentious point, and The Escapist is a reliable source (especially now that they've updated their policies re: reporting), so I can see no reason to hold off for more coverage or "stronger" sources, especially as it's not likely to come, considering how biased media have been in the whole affair. Willhesucceed (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

sorry, we dont lower our bar for sourcing because the more reliable sources dont cover it. thats crazytalk. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No one's saying anything about lowering the bar. The Escapist is already considered a reliable source; it's referenced elsewhere on this talk page without any objection. What's going on here? Willhesucceed (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The escapist is currently only being used to cite 4chan's side, because no more reliable sources are covering it. That's a good reason to take that source out, not to add more. We need to cover this issue the way the mainstream sources do; the escapist is not only covering this issue differently than the mainstream media is; it's covering it differently than the majority of high profile gaming blogs are. When we are talking about a BLP issue, we have to be very careful about including information that is so difficult to cite. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but in what universe can the Escapist not be considered a reliable source while Kotaku is still cited in this article? You do realize that Kotaku recently published a blatant clickbait article talking about how a Sailor Moon branded wallet allegedly resembles a vagina when opened - complete with a pixellated icon for the story? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

So, if I'm catching your drift, sources cannot be reliable on one small part of an issue because other "more reliable" sources are not covering it? This article has many single-sourced point,so I now seem to believe there's a defiance from the Administrators to considerably covr news from the other side.

And what makes the source incorrect if it's covering this issue contrary to what other media outlets are? Does that make it incorrect because other do it different? This ad-hominem you instate here is not helping anybody. And removing a "reliable" source that you've used in this article from this article, because they aren't consistently supporting a supposed side, is completely against the NPOV. This is upfront confession to the bias of this article. Derpen (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

WTF is happening here? You want to take The Escapist out? I feel like I'll need to lodge an complaint with the admins, because the work of the past days is being undone by going back to the BS one-sided state again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.113.249.206 (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The criticism that this article can't be included because it's taking a side is patently ridiculous. The Escapist article isn't taking any sides! It's reporting that a charity was started and that 4chan donated to it. What side is there to take in this? None: it's a simple statement of fact. There can be no reasonable objections to it. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually read what is said? The issue is beyond WP:RS; it is WP:UNDUE: unfairly presenting in the article a claim that is outside the scope of the mainstream views and interpretations of the subject . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not the criticism other people were making. This, I can accept. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request - Responses

I found a great \opinion piece by Liana Kerzner. In contrast to the partisanship that most other publications are engaging in, it presents a good faith perspective of the entire debacle. It also directly criticises the gaming media. For those reasons, I'd like to include the following under the Responses section:

Liana Kerzner, writing for metaleater.com, was, among other things, critical of the video game media's part in stoking the controversy, and apologised on behalf of her colleagues: "The fellow gamers I feel the absolute most sympathy for in all of this are the 'fat, white, heterosexual, cisgendered neckbeards' whose demographic was directly associated with bigotry. Columnists could have just said 'misogynist bigots,' but they didn't. [...] The generalizations were unprofessional, anti-intellectual, and dehumanizing. So, wearing my other hat as a member of the video game media, I am sorry for that. It was wrong, and you guys didn't deserve it." She concluded about the controversy: "The intentions on all sides of #GamerGate are, for the most part, sincere. I believe everyone wants a free, safe, open and honest video game media and community. There is, however, a deep divide regarding how to go about that."

Willhesucceed (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

we only use reliably published sources -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there a list somewhere of which sources are accepted as a RS and which are not? How does a new source become accepted as a RS? I don't see anything that would automatically disqualify the site as unreliable. In fact, it seems like a great source on the gaming industry. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

We look to sites that have established themselves as reliable, a history of fact checking and editorial control, and typically also consider how other established RS sites ref to such. As Metaleater.com appears to be only 2 years old at most, we don't have much history to go on - it might be different if their editorial staff had established backgrounds, but that's not the case either. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"reliable, a history of fact checking and editorial control, and typically also consider how other established RS sites ref to such". None of that sounds to me like it describes Kotaku, which is already being cited in this article. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The site's been online since 2004, and has existed since 2002. If you have a look at their About page, the site seems to take pride in hiring educated, knowledgeable writers. At least the (non-review) gaming articles are quite well researched, either through literature or interviews with multiple industry insiders. The writer spent literally a week on this last one, actually talking to people about the issues. That's *so* much more work than most sites have done, and especially "mainstream" sites. If this is not considered a reliable source, we should cull 99% of the references from this page.

It's been an incredibly frustrating experience to try to add balance and insight beyond "Misogyny!" and "Harassment!" to this article. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

We have numerous sources that outline the fact that many pro GG people have tried to point out that GG is more than just the arguments that this is a misogyny issue (eg the stuff about transparency in journalism) which is an opinion popular in other parts of the press. We are going to be able to present that side fairly with mainstream, non-gaming sources (eg Guardian, Telegraph, WA Post articles). --MASEM (t) 17:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Why can the sources not come from site known for gaming? Is there some ad-hominem towards them that I am not catching? Derpen (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

From a glance, I would say that there doesn't appear to be an editorial oversight for instance, and therefore appears self published. At the moment there are a lot of news publishers trying to cover the same subject as it's a good way to draw attention to their website, it's decent clickbait. They may be a reliable source for say the review of a game, but there doesn't appear any substance related to BLP type topics. Koncorde (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There is editorial oversight. In fact, the writer describes what went into writing and publishing this article right here. Can we admit this as a reliable source already? Willhesucceed (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't reject it offhand, but I also think your quoting of her is a bit selective and omits her clear criticism of 4chan, Reddit, etc. harassment. So I'll propose this version:

• Liana Kerzner, writing for metaleater.com, criticized the gaming media for making "unprofessional, anti-intellectual, and dehumanizing" generalizations about those who supported GamerGate, and that "as a member of the video game media, I am sorry for that. It was wrong, and you guys didn't deserve it." She also said that the gaming community needs to address a minority within its ranks that stigmatizes the rest. "The misogyny within our ranks is real. The racism is real. The homophobia and transgendered stigma is real. The stigma against mental illness is real. Our juvenile relationship with sexualized violence is real. These things may only occur in small subgroups of gamers, but that doesn't give us the right to turn a blind eye to it. ... When someone voices a sincere complaint that something is making games less fun for them, that voice should not be shouted down," she said.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't want to give her undue weight by quoting large portions (it's a 5000-word piece), so I pared it down to what I thought was notable, i.e. not included in other sources. Your edit better reflects the tone of the piece, however, and still includes the unique bits. We should leave out the sentence after the ellipsis. It's just reiterating what precedes it. So:

• Liana Kerzner, writing for metaleater.com, criticized the gaming media for making "unprofessional, anti-intellectual, and dehumanizing" generalizations about those who supported GamerGate, and that "as a member of the video game media, I am sorry for that. It was wrong, and you guys didn't deserve it." She also stated that the gaming community needs to address a minority within its ranks that stigmatizes the rest. "The misogyny within our ranks is real. The racism is real. The homophobia and transgendered stigma is real. The stigma against mental illness is real. Our juvenile relationship with sexualized violence is real. These things may only occur in small subgroups of gamers, but that doesn't give us the right to turn a blind eye to it", she wrote.

Is that good? Willhesucceed (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I'm good with that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The Fine Young Capitalists

We should discuss The Fine Young Capitalists. They've at the least been a notable sideshow throughout the entire debacle. There seems to be too much to append to a more general subsection (e.g. Other Stuff, but I'm not sure that there's enough to warrant a subsection of its own. Suggestions are welcome. In summary:

The Fine Young Capitalists are a radical feminist project which aims to empower minorities; they became embroiled in GamerGate when they started a project to develop women's video game concepts. They had problems with people associated with Silverstring Media, among them Zoe Quinn. The project was accused of being transphobic; Matthew Rappard was "doxxed"; and the furor basically would have ruined their project if not for GamerGate. Before GamerGate was called GamerGate, but after Gjoni posted about Quinn, TFYC earned the support of 4chan because of the troubles the project had endured with the industry. 4chan donated a lot of money to the cause; created a 4chan mascot, Vivian James, for the project; and requested that TFYC make informative videos about women who work in the gaming industry.

Both dailydpad.de, in their video interview with Matthew, and Cinema Blend note that The Fine Young Capitalists have received surprisingly little support from the gaming industry's media. William Usher writes for Cinema Blend that people "have been encouraged not to support TFYC as well, including notable comic book artist Gail Simone, who almost attempted to show support for the charity but was advised not to, in order to avoid upsetting the anti-#GamerGate crowd. The Fine Young Capitalists also have been on a social media block list (under the handle TFYC) by some major media outlets."

(The above is an attempt to note what's sourced. I believe all of the above is confirmed in the below sources, but if I've made a mistake somewhere, please correct me. And if you object to a source, could you please explain why? What's considered RS and what's not seems to be arbitrary.)

Sources: Le Monde, Forbes, Cinema Blend 1, Cinema Blend 2, Daily Dot, Techcrunch, Crowdfund Insider, Vox, dailydpad

Willhesucceed (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Is that a joke? Labeling a group 'radical feminist' is completely biased. Please try to suggest meaningful contributions. EvilConker (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The term "radical feminist" is well-defined. Whether it describes the brand of feminism espoused by TFYC is another question. But I don't think anyone can reasonably doubt that TFYC are at least feminist. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

To copy-paste a reply I gave below:

The sources we have on the group refer to them as feminists, and they identify themselves as such. The feminist church is broad. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

TFYC issues with Quinn will likely come up, but won't likely be a section, maybe a sentence or two. There is no way we can write about any specific incident in any detail and avoid the BLP and V landmines of trying to demonstrate the evidence. We'll likely have to leave it as claims of accusations (in the case of TFYC, their reported problems with Quinn). --MASEM (t) 15:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

TFYC's claims about Quinn are potentially libelous. If we are going to include 'their side' in any form we need to use extremely high quality sources that we can trust to report on them responsibly. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there's more value to TFYC's involvement than merely as an extension to the Quinn story.

1. The gaming industry has been accused of impropriety. This is a project that's formulated on the zeitgeist of the moment and virtually nobody in the media's touching them; they've essentially been blacklisted since they started, first with allegations of transphobia and then later through their association with GamerGate. Cinema Blend and the interviewer for dailydpad.de raise the issue.

2. Pro-"GamerGaters" are labeled misogynists. As a counterpoint, the same people who support GamerGate have supported this project. They created a great mascot and wanted to know more about women in the industry, which is why TFYC made videos about established women in the industry.

3. Pro-"GamerGaters" are accused of harassing people. There's proof that the opposite is true, also.

Referencing TFYC in the relevant topics would lend more dimension to the issues. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, if we get details into the specifics of such accusations, we will never get a neutral article. We have to go into what started this (Quinn's ex's accusation) but this final article should end up addressing the larger issues that some of the specific accusations reflect. So yes, we will likely be mentioning the creation of the TFYC mascot as supporting GG, but we aren't going to try to figure out if TFYC did or did not harass others (or even if we have to bring that up). --MASEM (t) 16:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I may point out that this entire article is quite biased and misleading. It doesn't delve into what the supporters of #GamerGate are "fighting for" (A.K.A. what the "About" section should be about), nor does it include the fact that there has been harassment from BOTH sides. But here, we are left with a list exclusively about the harassment from the Pro-GamerGate side. And I've been noticing quite the pattern. Anytime there is a source from Pro-GamerGate side, it's turned down for the "source not being reliable".

I never knew that Wikipedia held a list of sites and sources that were reliable, if you're sensing my condescension. With that same logic applied to other sources in Wikipedia articles, of said articles would be seen as "unreliable" for not being up to the RS feed standard you so highly regard. Even to the point where you turn down an article from TheEscapist, a source you regard as reliable, that tells of the going-ons of a #GamerGate charity because "It's not reported by other sources", despite the fact that this article alone has many single-sourced points. I do not understand such this raw defiance to report from the other said of the issue. Derpen (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

REmember the article is locked down for a few more days, so we know we have to add in the other arguments from the GG side once we can decide on the right language. The bias is only temporary because the article was given full protection preventing routine editing. Note that I'm not 100% sure if the Escapist's articles here are necessasrily unusable, but we do have to be aware at least one other written by the same written puts their bias on their sleeve, so we have to be careful; it doesn't rule it out, but we'd rather see similar coverage from another source on the same issue just in case. But one thing we have to worry about here is the whole aspect of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. If a topic is only being touched on by one source, no matter how reliable, then giving it extensive coverage is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

To get back to the points (1,2,3) I raised above: we don't need to go into lurid detail. Presently, the article is far from balanced, and including the above information where appropriate would provide better context and in fact make it more neutral. Willhesucceed (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe that this article should be gotten rid of and not touched until it is over, because this is not both sides and it never will be until this is over. I was hoping to at least see a little objectivity, but this is insanity. I cannot even believe that this is what passes for objectivity now. Is it alright to just kowtow to anyone's demands for nothing at all? "TFYC issues with Quinn will likely come up, but won't likely be a section, maybe a sentence or two?" Is this really all the attention that they deserve? I'm pretty sure that the TYFC played a giant role in all of this and deserve at least a section to talk about what happened. Their inclusion into this whole situation is an important part of this story.Thegostofnev (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

As somebody who has seen both sides of the coin, I can understand the frustration people are having with the article. We're aware people on both sides (editors included) have attempted to push agendas left and right, and the goal right now is trying to get it balanced even if it takes awhile. Current events like this are always subject to controversy although GamerGate in particular is getting a tad bit more. Everything here is a work-in-progress. Citation Needed | Citation Needed 16:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of things flying around in terms of "He said she said" that while we could probably source some of those, we can't do justice to all, so it is better, keeping a neutral POV, to only touch on the major points. We are not here to justify or vilify one side or the other, we're here to report that there was a period of about 3+ weeks (still going) that caused a major introspective review of the gaming industry by all parties involved due to issues that have been building for a while. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This is by far the most difficult and problematic Wikipedia article I've ever been involved with given the manifold issues, policies, and agendas in play. The only way forward I can see is to edit from from a medium range, in a manner of speaking. But finding the right scale and granularity to describe this hyper-kinetic Koosh ball shall take some time. kencf0618 (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

translated to Wikipedian: it is WP:TOOSOON to have the article because we dont know what (if anything) the reliable sources are going to make of this thing]]. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I dislike using the cliché, but in a lot of ways GamerGate is the perfect storm for Wikipedia in terms of an intractable, problematic article. I knew it would be hairy, but good Lord...! kencf0618 (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

To an extent, Wikipedia is involved, not because of this article, but because of the articles on Zoe and Anita and a few others that existed prior to GG that have been targets from off-site users to be edited to fix what they see as NPOV issues in how they are covering these controversial persons. I don't know how well we can document that fact for this article here or if it even needs to, but we've been here before and we can work through it. We shouldn't be ignoring a topic that is notable and this significant an event in the short history of video games. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Just so. This is a topic with a lot of moving parts (to say the least), and everyone perforce wants to control the narrative, because on Wikipedia that information is sticky, and so GamerGate has taken on a life of its own beyond the specifics of the harassment campaigns directed against Z&A und so weiter. I was discussing this very topic with a friend today, and she said that while her gamer friends have some concerns about gaming journalism, they do not want to be associated with misogynistic [expletive deleted]. kencf0618 (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The edit protection is going to be lifted soon. Predictions: 1. it will be locked again within the hour due to additional edit warring. 2. the final shape with the new lock will be as unsatisfactory and biased as this article. A simple headcount suggests the antis will come out on top, although this will be (probably) mostly down to luck. 3. Everybody will assume it is Wikipedia's official stance. Which, in a way, it is by default. Yes, yes, WRONGVERSION whatever, I'm sure there will eventually be a high-quality neutral article in place. It's just that nobody cares if it's correct in the end because nobody's going to come back and read it again. 14.200.20.112 (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't worry about people that might read an article on WP once, feel it is bad, and never come back. WP is a continously improving resource, so we're rather have the readers that come back and even help to participate to improve. And no, we're not going to do a head count and say that the anti-GG side should be favored. We have to rewrite the article to the point that neither side is "right" (barring any legal cases that may result). --MASEM (t) 00:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We write the article to reflect how it is reflected by the mainstream reliable sources. If the reliable sources primarily focus on the unabashed crude harassment of the GG hashtaggers, then we will too.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep. We have our own habitation and a name and protocols; the extant citations are what they are. Which is currently something of a meta-miasma, granted, but if, say, the FBI issues a criminal complaint it'll be a whole 'nother story. In any case we wait on developments, and we do what we can with what we've got. kencf0618 (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Except, that now, most mainstream (non-video game sources) are not overtly critical of the GG side and are trying to explain what their point is. The last few major articles we've gotten from places like the WA post are going to help us write a more balanced article. --MASEM (t) 01:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

On the headcount, it actually works like this: people will edit war -> since there is a set limit on reverts per person, which side gets more airtime basically comes down to which side contains more unique IP addresses -> If the protection process involves a perfectly neutral admin who clamps down without reading, article is more likely to get frozen on the side with more airtime. Assuming the article will come out unbiased assumes agreement, which is unlikely any time soon.

The problem with the WRONGVERSION policy in this case: viewer interest is very likely to drop off a cliff in a couple of months (probably less). While it is important to have a high-quality final version, it's also important to have acceptably unbiased versions in-between. Because for the vast majority of people who doesn't have an opinion either way and whose interest stops at reading a wiki article, it's the last version they will ever read. What's the point of an excellent article if only 1% of your audience reads it, but 99% read the low-quality protected version? Who are you writing it for? As an unrelated example: If I were a PR agent and I could get my client's wiki page to say the right things for the month or so after a big scandal, I'd call that a victory regardless of what it says afterwards.
14.200.20.112 (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

we are not here to play marketeers. but if there is anything that is obviously wrong, just start a section with the sources and gain consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

yeah, consensus is not going to happen. My proposal would be to delete everything after and including the sentence starting "Writing in Paste, Garrett Martin", and then lock it for a month. Less is more. p.s. I am going to quote your statement earlier in the thread: "pffff. more of the #Pudgate of dicks astroturfing harassment attempting to masquerade as something else." Unseemly! Also puts the rest of your statements denying validity of pro-GG sources into perspective. 14.200.20.112 (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If " consensus is not going to happen. " then there is nothing that is "obviously wrong" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess from my end this raises the issue of "what is GamerGate" again. If GamerGate is seen to be a term to cover the whole event, from the release of private information about Quinn. through to now, with everything in between, then it is necessarily going to be very broad. Alternatively, if GamerGate is seen to be a term to refer to a movement to bring about change in games journalism, as a response to perceived bias in reviewing and an emphasis on certain types of critical analysis, then it will have a narrower focus. Both accounts start from the initial harassment and allegations against Quinn and, to a lesser extent, Sarkessian. However, if we take the second understanding of GamerGate, other issues relating to Quinn, where they are not related to journalism, are out of scope. Thus TFYC issues would be irrelevant to GamerGate, as they were not a major trigger for GamerGate (which was focused on journalism). My understanding was that were were working with the second interpretation. - Bilby (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Either way, TFYC is still relevant. If the narrower focus: TFYC's treatment before and during GamerGate by the gaming media is relevant to critique of its journalism. If the broader focus: whatever part of the outline I posted above that's deemed non-libelous, as TFYC and its supporters are both directly involved with the furor and a concrete example of pretty much everything GamerGate (accusations of misogyny, the issue of harassment, the industry blackout, social justice negatively affecting people in the industry, etc.). Willhesucceed (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're stretching the importance of the media with TFYC. Whatever Quinn may or may not have said or done with TFYC, it has no particular bearing on the media. Perhaps you can sneak in TFYC by talking about the lack of coverage they are said to have received, but that's a bit of a stretch. In regard to the broad interpretation, then yes, TYFC and Quinn fit, but then GamerGate becomes essentially about harassment and misogyny as much as it is about the gaming media, and that is an interpretation resisted by those involved in the movement. - Bilby (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Bilby, I've been saying the same thing throughout "what is GamerGate?". Show us what GamerGate is and show us the sources, then we can sort out the article. Until then and forever more it will be more tabloid than encyclopedic. Koncorde (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Koncorde, do you not understand that literally because of what GamerGate is, none of the popular media/websites that you view as reliable sources will talk about it in a fair way? The only time it is talked about on sources you will accept is where it is discredited as an harassment campaign. There are many sites where people have laid out what the truths/ideals of GamerGate are, but you won't find them on popular media/sites, because literally the entire point of GamerGate is about how these sites/media don't follow ethical journalist rules, and are all full of nepotism helping each other out.Slimneb (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Video game journalism is simply not important enough for it to be remotely credible that the mainstream press would put their reputations at risk by publishing false information. We report what the reliable sources say, and we don't determine whether or not they're reliable based on how well they support a given opinion, even when that opinion involves a conspiracy theory about journalistic corruption. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

As Tara says, the idea that not one single reliable source wouldn't "break ranks" over something like video games is not rational. Please bear in mind that pretty much any fringe idea can find mainstream traction somewhere in the press, be it 9/11 conspiracies, Chemtrails, MH370 or whatever is causing / curing cancer this week but your argument is Video Gaming is too...taboo? Koncorde (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There are sites that are posting alternative views, interpretations, understandings, but they're not considered reliable sources most often because they're new and don't have a track record. I mention Metaleater, which is a great site for video game stuff, and has existed for 12 years, and am told it's unreliable. The one source that's still considered reliable, Cinema Blend, is now being attacked because it's not in lock-step with everyone else.

As for the "MSM", they're going with what the big gaming sites are saying. Video games aren't politics, after all—why bother to do any independent research? And the right won't dig into this because, remember, video games are evil. And then there are people like Jenn Frank who have ties with Quinn and Silverstring.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Willhesucceed (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

National Enquirer has been around for almost 100 years. Age has very little to do with reliability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"Context matters", it's opinion and opinion is allowed, and it's a secondary source. It's got educated, knowledgeable writers who are subject to editorial control. The feature writer for their gaming section does extensive research on every article they write. What exactly disqualifies it? Willhesucceed (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I take serious issue with us calling this this group 'radical feminists.' Many of the comments members of this group have made are extremely problematic to say the least. Their self-serving commentary alone is not enough to legitimize this claim when their website is full of MRA talking points. What feminist would belittle a woman who feels unwelcome in a male-dominated industry by saying "the problem with considering women as being equal is you’re not impressed by them just being women." That's an anti-feminist perspective: that giving women an advantage in a situation where they're ordinarily disadvantaged is the real sexism. If we're going to cover this group's involvement at all, we need to stick to what the high quality sources say about them. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The sources we have on the group refer to them as feminists, and they identify themselves as radical feminists. The feminist church is broad, as a look at the relevant Wikipedia section will reveal to you. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The sources that we have on this are extremely weak, the group's relevance to the article is marginal, and their own behavior is decidely anti-feminist. This is why I think we need stronger sourcing for any information we include on them. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Vox refers to them as "very feminist". Le Monde refers to them as feminist. Both very reliable sources.

2. Erik Kain for Forbes notes that the group self-identifies as radical feminists, and notes that their ideology differs significantly from mainstream feminism. Let me refer you to Wikipedia's own article on radical feminism: TERFs are among the people considered feminists. Separatist feminists are also considered feminists. The feminist church is broad.

3. There's a very strong academic understanding of feminism that underpins their, according to you, "anti-feminist" attitudes. Matthew explains some of this thinking in the first hour of this interview, and also in his dailydpad.de interview linked above. They even have their own Youtube channel that provides insight into their feminist views. If anything, they're far better feminists than the average contemporary feminist.

4. There are no gainsaying sources.

If your objection is that we should refer to them as "feminist" instead of "radical feminist", I'll concede that. If you want us to not refer to them as feminist at all, you'll have to support that request with reliable sources. You can't, and therefore the answer will have to be "no". Willhesucceed (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of TFYC, I read in an unreliable source (or an aside from a reliable one) that TFYC and Quinn have supposed settled the matter between them. If we can source this, this would be good to have but I'm not having luck finding a source. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The source was TFYC's blog; the post has since been deleted and IIRC the link redirects to the blog post I linked just above. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that I found too, the links to the blog post gone, and looks like there were complaints when they apologized and pulled it. I doubt we'll be able to source this well. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That's the problem with using them as a source, though: their comments on the issue within the past few weeks have been contradictory. They've changed their story more than once. At this point, we need to be relying on what reliable sources are saying (if indeed they're saying anything at all) about them and their part in the issue. Interviews on small gaming sites and their own blog aren't useful, especially since their involvement is peripheral at best. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Tara, read my reply to you above, and then seriously consider dropping this. Please. Willhesucceed (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

(Several edit conflicts later)Their comments on their history with Quinn have been contradictory, which makes the group themselves unreliable source for the purposes of this article. We certainly do not have a good source for 'radical feminist,' despite your objections, but that's not the only issue here. Their involvement is marginal at best and they're being given undue weight here.

This edit is out of line, by the way. It substantially changes the comment after I'd replied to it in a way that's very dishonest. That, coupled with your rather dismissive comments ("consider dropping this. Please." and an entire bullet point dedicated to the word 'Stop,' for example) are creating a very hostile tone. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Would you try to engage with people in good faith. I changed it because when I looked through the sources I realised that no one referred to them as "radical feminist", only they themselves.

The job of Wikipedia contributors is not to judge the reliability of primary sources. You'll see I was smacked down up above for making exactly the same sort of complaint, rightly so. If we're going to start judging primary sources for ourselves, we'll also have to turn our eyes to Quinn and Sarkeesian. We might as well rewrite the entire article to reflect our understanding of the issues. That's not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is about collecting information from reliable, non-primary sources and providing it to readers in a coherent form.

Willhesucceed (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The more forthright approach would have been to follow up in a subsequent comment, say 'ah, I see, that's true, I was misremembering,' and if you'd like, to strike the word, but not remove it entirely. As it is you've just changed the comment so it looked like I in my response made a claim that I did not make.

When nearly every comment you've made to me has been in some way or other dismissive or rude, you aren't really in a position to tell me that I'm not 'engaging in good faith.' In the future, rather than beginning by making extremely abrasive comments and toning them down in edits, please try considering your tone before you click save. Many people read active discussions on talkpages revision by revision, and making abrasive comments and then editing them out still contributes to a hostile tone.

Your comment about primary sources is puzzling. We should generally not be using them at all when there are no secondary sources available. We are absolutely not able to evaluate them ourselves: we should report what the reliable sources report. That doesn't change that TFYC are only tangentially related to this issue, rarely mentioned in mainstream press and generally given very little space when they are. Given that fact, and given that their comments on the issue have been contradictory, we need to be careful about what if anything we say about the group.

And please don't tell me 'what Wikipedia is about.' You're a single purpose account that has adopted a battleground mentality in attempting to make this article more favorable towards GamerGate. Your approach is only making the process here more difficult. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"battleground mentality" You've consistently and constantly opposed giving the pro-GamerGate side any more nuance than "Bigots!" I am not the one here who has adopted a battleground mentality.

"Your comment about primary sources is puzzling." You brought up removing TFYC because you considered them contradictory, but whether they're contradictory is irrelevant because whatever comments it is that you deem contradictory cannot be sourced, anyway.

"please try considering your tone before you click save" Alright, I apologise for being snippy. It's just that you seem to have no conception of feminist theory beyond what's popular this decade. That, or you haven't bothered to find out what TFYC is about. Maybe you should educate yourself about them. Feel free to click the video links I posted up above. You also seem to be under the misapprehension that they're a pro-GamerGate group. They've been decidedly neutral. What they have supported is 4chan and anybody else's willingness to fund a charity for women. Just because you take money from Christians doesn't mean you're supporting anti-abortion.

To reiterate: TFYC deserve mention because they're relevant to the narrative that GamerGate are misogynists. TFYC further deserve mention because they're relevant to alleged impropriety on the part of the gaming media. They're also relevant in showing that neither "side" of GamerGate has behaved particularly well, although, certainly GamerGate's behaved much worse. These are all things that should be included in order to avoid painting a black and white picture of the situation. Reality is not a caricature, so let's avoid giving that impression of it in the article. Eight different publications have written about them. That's a sizable number. Erik Kaine wrote paragraphs about them, Le Monde a paragraph, Cinema Blend two articles, Vox two sentences in order to give 4chan context (see, they considered that important), Le Monde a paragraph, Daily Dot a whole article ... With that in mind, an individual paragraph, or a sentence here and there to add dimension to the rest of the story will give them their due weight. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"battleground mentality" You've consistently and constantly opposed giving the pro-GamerGate side any more nuance than "Bigots!" I am not the one here who has adopted a battleground mentality. I disagree. The comments I've cited and others have been quite combative. As I said, you're an WP:SPA who's clearly here to create a pro-gamergate slant in Wikipedia's coverage, so a battleground mentality is to be expected, but your framing of my stance is innappropriate and innacurate.

It's just that you seem to have no conception of feminist theory beyond what's popular this decade. You just apologized for being 'snippy' and insulted me in the same breath. Just saying. I'm plenty 'educated' about TFYC, thank you. I don't agree with your assessment of them; more importantly, our assessments of them aren't relevant here.

To reiterate: TFYC deserve mention because they're relevant to the narrative that GamerGate are misogynists. Can you source this? Do you have reliable sources that state that they disprove the 'narrative' that you wish to disprove? Again, they're mentioned occasionally, but if you are including this information to make the case that GamerGate is not primarily a campaign of backlash against women in gaming, you're going to need to cite sources that demonstrate that, and show the group's importance is high enough to devote space to them here. They've been mentioned several times, but briefly, as asides to the larger issue rather than an important part, and at least one of the sources you're counting has specifically called out GamerGate's support of them as being out of 'spite.' If you are trying to present a 'narrative' here, you need to source that narrative, not just cobble together cherry picked mentions that tell the story you want to tell without regard for the story the sources you're using are telling. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"battleground mentality" your framing of my stance is innappropriate and innacurate Back at ya?

they're mentioned occasionally, but if you are including this information to make the case that GamerGate is not primarily a campaign of backlash against women in gaming [...] I believe I've shown their importance is high enough. I'm not trying to prove that the controversy hasn't been a backlash against women. I'm simply stating relevant sections of the article should be nuanced, and that TFYC provides some of that nuance. Again, a short paragraph or a few sentences here and there will give them their due weight. Willhesucceed (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I've given specific examples of language you've used that is unduly combative. All youv'e done is inform me that I am 'consistently and constantly opposed giving the pro-GamerGate side any more nuance than "Bigots!"' Your evidence of that is, apparently, merely the fact that I disagree with you.

You have not 'shown that their importance is high enough.' You've said you think that TFYC are relevant to the 'alleged impropriety;' you need to cite that 'alleged impropriety' for it to be a useful argument for inclusion. You say that it proves that 'neither side behaved particularly well;' you need to cite that. The MSM sources we have so far have done no more than acknowledge that they exist (and in one case, state that the donations appear to have been out of spite). Your arguments for inclusion: - that they prove Zoe Quinn did something 'bad' - are not sourced. The reasons you're giving for including this information are not sourced. Without sources, this amounts to original resarch, including information to construct a different narrative than your sources are presenting. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, you win. I don't care about this anymore. BB in a few months. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

On Reliable Sources

A large chunk of the discussion can be summed up as 'Source X is/is not reliable because Y'. It is poorly formatted and confusing to read through, not to mention it is impossible to tell at a glance what the official, admin views are. Let's have a thread about it.

Bring up an source/article, plus why you think it's reliable/not. Most importantly, if you have admin rights/represent Wikipedia consensus/can cite specific guidelines/have a direct line to Jimbo/is a prophet of cthulu, say so up front. 14.200.20.112 (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI - there are no "official admin" views of content. Admins are merely the folks with the mop who have the ability to clean up messes according to the consensus of the community. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

A huge amount of this seems to be gossip and supposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.50.220 (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Including those which Wikipedia calls "reliable sources". --Artman40 (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We should downgrade in "reliability" for this topic any article that claims one or more of these things (the more, the worse, obviously):

1. That the GamerGate hashtag was started by 4chan. It was started by Adam Baldwin.

2. That the notyourshield hashtag was started by 4chan. It was started by an individual dude.

3. That Eron Gjoni claimed Quinn slept with Grayson for professional gain. The primary source does not support this at all.

All three of these claims are very easy to fact-check. Failure to do so speaks to the unreliability of the source for this particular topic. I don't know if any such articles are being used as sources, but if they are, they should be reconsidered. Willhesucceed (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No. We don't judge the reliability of sources based on whether or not the represent a topic the way you want it represented. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't judge a source according to facts? Willhesucceed (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you know the facts? Again, what makes this article difficult to right is that the specific events involve a lot of accusations with little evidence or evidence that we are unable to use on WP, so some of the specifics of these accusations do not need to be included at all. Mentioning Baldwin as one of the first to use the GamerGate name on social media, yes; but we cannot assure it was started by him, for example. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

In the specific cases cited here, yes, we do know the facts. Nobody has turned up a prior use of the hashtags, even though it would be very much in the interest of some of the people involved to "prove" they were "started by 4chan" (i.e., the people who have been going around spreading those false rumours). The only people who've been making those claims (AFAICT: Quinn herself, and anyone she can get to take her seriously on this point) have presented flimsy evidence that is easily refuted (for example, an IRC log was cited, but it was chronologically after Baldwin's tweet, and referred to Alec Baldwin, not Adam Baldwin - who I understand is not actually related). Regardless, if there is concrete evidence for the claim that Baldwin started the tag, and a putatively reliable source flatly claims otherwise without evidence, I don't see why the source should be taken at its word.

As for Gjoni's claims, at least one of the sources linked directly to them; it is easy to verify for yourself what is and is not claimed there. That is not a subjective matter. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Biased, with concealed WP:OR right off the top

The first paragraph of the Background section:

In August 2014 personal, private and sensitive information of the video game developer Zoe Quinn was posted to the internet by an ex-boyfriend.[7] His information included allegations regarding a level of personal impropriety in her relationship with a video game journalist from Kotaku.[8][9][10] Kotaku editor-in-chief Stephen Totillo stated that the writer had not written anything about Quinn after beginning the relationship and had never reviewed her games.[10]

Citation 7 is this New Yorker article; it does not provide the August 2014 dating, and does not mention any "personal, private and sensitive information" other than alleging a relationship with a journalist. Calling the information "personal, private and sensitive" is editorialization that is not supported by any reliable secondary source here.

Citation 8 is this Guardian article; it only mentions "a spiteful blogpost by the ex-lover of indie games developer Zoe Quinn" in passing, saying nothing whatsoever about the allegations therein.

Citation 9 is this Slate article; it does not mention Ms. Quinn at all, nor the blog post. (Perhaps this previous article by the same author was intended?)

Citation 10 is this Kotaku article; it speaks only of "a possible breach of ethics involving one of our reporters" that, while involving Ms. Quinn and the "journalist from Kotaku" in question, does not make any mention of the source of the allegations. Connecting them to Ms. Quinn's ex's blog post is therefore WP:OR. Further, this source cannot reasonably be considered an impartial, reliable, secondary source, because Mr. Totilo has an obvious vested interest in defending the staff of his publication. Mr. Totilo may have disclaimed any wrongdoing by the journalist in question, but I see no reason why this disclaimer should be given any more weight than the accusations of Ms. Quinn's ex himself (which incidentally have been strawmanned in most reporting I've seen of them.

While it may be the case that the blog post being referred to makes these allegations, along with other information that might be considered "personal, private and sensitive" (although, unless you want to introduce lawyers into the discussion, that's WP:SUBJECTIVE), the sources being cited here don't make, or even properly support the argument being presented. That makes it WP:OR.

70.24.5.250 (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Ref 7 certainly does support that statement, and 8-10 support the following statement without synthesis. Woodroar (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I made a very clear and considered argument as to how the refs do not support the statements. I would appreciate if you put in a little more effort than to flatly contradict me. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Ref 7 states, "at the end of August she was “doxed,” a slang term for document tracing, which is when a person’s personal details—home address, phone numbers, bank details, and, in some cases, social-security number—are made public on the Internet". Refs 8-10 restate the source of the allegations and discuss how the relationship is seen as improper. I do agree that the second Slate source you mention goes more in-depth. I'm sorry about the shortness of my reply but I'm in the middle of playing a video game at the moment. :) Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The "doxing" mentioned in Ref 7 is not stated by the article to have anything to do with Ms. Quinn's ex. Details of the sort described are not included in the blog post and nobody has been alleging they came from there. Ref 8 mentions the source of the allegations, but nothing about what is alleged. These are the only quotes from the article that mention Quinn in any way: "A spiteful blogpost by the ex-lover of indie games developer Zoe Quinn, and the launch of the latest Tropes vs Women video by Sarkeesian, which analyses the sexist depiction of women in some games, have led to reams of appalling threats and abuse online.... The wretched miscreants that swamp Quinn, Sarkeesian and others with vile threats every time they post a video, a story or a tweet, have come to symbolise community." Ref 9 does not mention a source of the allegations in any way. It is entirely about later events in the controversy. Ref 10 also says nothing about the involvement of Ms. Quinn's ex. It only says that the Kotaku journalist "has been accused" of such and such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.5.250 (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the defense by Totilo is reliable and, more importantly, true. It makes factual statements — that Grayson did not write anything about Quinn after beginning the relationship and that Grayson never wrote a review of Quinn's work — that are uncontroverted. No reliable source is reporting anything that contradicts Totilo's statements, nor is any reliable source even questioning Totilo's statements. Therefore, the factual conclusions stand.

You will note that the article does not state, in Wikipedia's voice, that the claims are false. Instead, it states the positions taken up by each side of the argument. It's not Wikipedia's problem if the available facts about Grayson's journalistic work tend to suggest one side or the other is true. If there is a reliable source reporting facts that tend to support the other position, let us include them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

But the absence of reliable sources contradicting Totilo isn't sufficient. You've already told me that there has to be a reliable source for claims of harassment of people posting on the #gamergate tag. There aren't any reliable sources saying they aren't being harassed.

Kotaku, and by extension Totilo, should not be considered a reliable source for anything. It's a blatant clickbait site.

Meanwhile, all of a sudden you're talking about "available facts", when I've already pointed to things that are objectively true on this talk page and been brushed off with WP:VNT. That's flatly hypocritical.

Besides which, that still ignores the original point that Totilo does not in any way connect the allegations to Ms. Quinn's ex. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Kotaku is considered a reliable source by WikiProject Video Games; at any rate, it's certainly a reliable source for its own viewpoints, and given that we're publishing accusations of misconduct against it, we can hardly omit its own official reply to those accusations.

Yes, I'm talking about facts that are published in reliable sources. The key is that there are reliable sources. Totilo's statements are repeated and commented upon in a wide variety of reliable sources, and none of them so much as question, much less contradict, Totilo's statements. Therefore, there is no other POV about them which needs to be represented.

It doesn't matter that Totilo doesn't directly connect the allegations to Quinn's ex. Other sources cited (or citable) make the connection to the allegations for us. It's not prohibited synthesis to juxtapose multiple reliable sources that are verifiably discussing the same thing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Something being published in a reliable source does not make it a fact. Your deliberate conflation here is quite frustrating. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

But as long as we're talking about reliable sources: WP:VG/RS tells me that The Escapist is also considered an RS, despite multiple people on this page trying to argue they shouldn't be used. They don't list BuzzFeed, which is pretty clearly a clickbait site that I would argue should not be used. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request - interpretation of Erik Kain's article

'According to Erik Kain, writing in Forbes, the GamerGate movement is driven by an anti-feminist backlash against the increasing diversity of voices involved in cultural criticism of video games. "What it boils down to is many people feeling upset that the video game space has been so heavily politicized with a left-leaning, feminist-driven slant," he said.[3]'

I draw your attention to that first sentence. Is the proceeding quote supposed to be justification for it? It's not. The former does not follow from the latter.

I suggest it's reworded:

'According to Erik Kain, writing in Forbes, the GamerGate movement is driven by an anti-feminist backlash against the increasing propensity for cultural criticism of video games. "What it boils down to is many people feeling upset that the video game space has been so heavily politicized with a left-leaning, feminist-driven slant," he said.[3]'

That's a simple edit that preserves the overall meaning without inserting unnecessary bias. Willhesucceed (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything biased about the old wording. What exactly does your change add? Don't just throw around the word 'bias;' explain why the difference is important. -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

As it stands, it implies that the GamerGate movement dislikes diversity, but as #notyourshield and support for TFYC prove, that's not the case. The criticism has been (and is clearly characterised as such by Erik Kain, in the quote provided) that video game criticism is increasingly politicised, and that this is seeping too much into criticism/reviews. It just so happens that this politicisation, until now, has been feminist. My rewording clarifies what the issue is. Willhesucceed (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that either of those things 'prove' that GamerGate is not primarily a backlash against social justice, and a vast majority of our sources back that up, but that's not my point. How does your rewording clarify anything? You're just cluttering the sentence with more words that don't add any new meaning. You're not even attributing this 'propensity' to any source. -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

1. The source is the Forbes article. It's right there in the quote. Erik Kain explains in the article that socially conscious, and especially feminist criticism, has been increasing in the video game industry, and then says "the video game space has been so heavily politicised".

2. I'm decluttering the sentence, if anything.

3. The vast majority of claims are of misogyny, not anti-feminism, so the edit is necessary anyway even by your reasoning.

Willhesucceed (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It's actually pretty much all of his subsequent sentences that appear to qualify the "increasing diversity". To quote "they have no problem with more women and gay people represented in games; they simply don’t want every game to be critiqued based on these factors" etc. Koncorde (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The portions of the sentence you are removing are supported by the source and I don't think you've made a good argument for removing them. But the phrase 'propensity for' is puzzling and I don't understand why you want to add it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

(Reposting, because it mysteriously disappeared in an edit NorthBySouthBaranof made while replying to me elsewhere:) Even if it isn't biased, it's misrepresentative. Kain does not argue that the cultural criticism comes from "increasingly diverse voices", and in fact, they objectively don't - if you look at the staff lists for Kotaku, Polygon etc. you will note that they're still overwhelmingly white males. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed section approach - "Issues"

Given sources above, I think we can create a section on the core issues central to GamerGate, all which have been things building from the past. There are four major issues that I can source from those already ID'd on this page, which we can discuss in historical terms:

1. The distrust of gaming journalism by gamers - this extends back to Jeff Gerstmann's outster from Gamespot, and then the more recent Doritogate but there's other case I think we can cite too.
2. The rise of the indie game, which is giving developers voices they would not normally have by the traditional publishing market, including the means to voice specific viewpoints. We can then mention the previous issues that Quinn had back last year in regards to the announcement of Depression Quest
3. The increase in "citizen journalism" via YouTube, Twitter, etc. giving gamers a voice that would have not been heard otherwise. This has both positive and negative benefits, and we can point to cases of both, and that we had problems last year with game devs + journalists being threatened by such.
4. The changing nature of what a "gamer" is, pointing to the recent news about females being the majority of gamers, due to how these include mobile and casual games, and that there is a concern by the more hardcore gamers that this is causing devs and journalists to "forget" about that market.

GG is basically where all these areas intersected in one short event, bringing attention of the world to these growing issues. I would probably put this before the actual events since this would all be historically before the actual events. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You're omitting the core issue discussed most widely by the reliable sources: the harassment of females in the gaming industry. As the Washington Post puts it, Sexism in gaming is a long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable problem. It’s also the crux of the industry’s biggest ongoing battle being waged on Twitter under the hashtag “#GamerGate.”

It is inextricably intertwined with the debate because the level of sexism, misogyny, harassment and hostility shown has poisoned the well. As Vox notes, The #GamerGaters have some actually interesting concerns, largely driven by the changing face of video game culture. But those concerns have often been warped and drowned out by an army of trolls spewing bile, often at women. "But whatever the higher motivations of some of those involved, the debate has had such a toxic undercurrent of abuse and anti-feminism that it has poisoned the whole concept. If this is about ethics, it cannot also be about systematic harassment. Those two contradict each other completely." (Keith Stuart, The Guardian) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily call it out as "harassment" but I do agree the treatment of women and/or sexism in the industry is an issue to include. We can point this out, and this could be where to include Tropes vs Women and the criticism that she got for that before this event. ("Harassment" is a harsh word, lets save it for where non-VG, independent 3rd party highly reliable sources actually use that word). --MASEM (t) 22:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Masem, the reliable sources I just provided do call it "harassment" — or to use even stronger language, "threats." Washington Post, Vox, The New Yorker, The Toronto Globe and Mail, Los Angeles Times, The Telegraph, Marketplace, etc. etc. etc. How many more do you want to see? Effectively all of the "non-VG, independent, 3rd party highly reliable sources" focus on the harassment issue as the central issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

as NorthBySouthBaranof says, to not include harassment as one of if not THE major issue that reliable sources discussing GamerGate focus on is an absurd WP:NPOV violation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying we should be careful in using the word harassment. It is certainly a word to use to describe events August 2014 onward, but before that point (specifically for this "Issues" section) we have to be more careful. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I feel like you're ignoring the reliable sources in an attempt to reach some sort of false "balance." You asked for what the "non-VG, independent 3rd party highly reliable sources" said, and I provided it. They say this is about harassment of women in video games and attempts by some gamers to reject and shut out the increasing diversity of voices in gaming. The New Yorker states that the fact that the criticism and harassment was focused exclusively on Quinn rather than Grayson "reveals the true nature of much of the criticism: a pretense to make further harassment of women in the industry permissible." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) before August "gamergate" was not even WP:NOTNEWS - the only thing that has brought any reliable coverage has been the harassment. and if you look at your calendar, we are past Aug 2014 - time and the event did not stop. we cover it as the sources cover it, not as we might wish the events had not unfolded or twisting the microscope so that we only see part of it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much this. The only reason most of these sites are covering it at all is because it's easy to paint and sell a narrative of a woman or women being harassed only because she/they're female when it's more complex than that. Like Masem said, "harassment" should be used and considered sparingly. Citation Needed | Citation Needed 23:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

yah, it is pretty easy to "to paint and sell a narrative of a woman or women being harassed only because she/they're female" when "a woman or women are being harassed only because she/they're female". its not more complicated than that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Both of you are missing the point. I'm not denying that there was harassment, period, from August onward. But we have sources that do describe that this situation didn't materialize out of nowhere, and these are the issues that are believed to be the lead-in to this. One of the issues, in the broadest sense, is the treatment of women (both the real people, and characters) and sexism in the industry. In some select cases there, such as when Anita put out her first Tropes vs Women video, that lead to harassment. But in the broader sense, it's sexism (which can include harassment). There is no denying that it happened before and has happened here, but when speaking of issues in general of what happened before, we need to avoid the word "harassment" unless it is specifically called out that way. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The only reason most of these sites are covering it at all is because it's easy to paint and sell a narrative of a woman or women being harassed only because she/they're female when it's more complex than that. Well, that's the narrative that the GamerGaters are attempting to present, anyway. Unfortunately, whatever motives you may believe the press has for presenting this information as it does, Wikipedia's policies stand: we say what the sources say, period. We are not going to 'avoid the word harassment.' The vast majority of strong, reliable sources present this as primarily an incident of mass-harassment and aggression, and if they mention the other 'issues' at all, mention them as incidental or spurious. We do not need to be any more 'careful' about the word 'harassment' than we do about any other aspect of this article; we have considerably better sources for its inclusion than we do for any of these 'issues.' We are not in the business of speculating about the ulterior motives of reliable sources here; when the overwhelming majority of high quality sources say the same thing, we have absolutely no place whitewashing the article by disregarding them.

Both of you are missing the point. I'm not denying that there was harassment, period, from August onward. But we have sources that do describe that this situation didn't materialize out of nowhere, and these are the issues that are believed to be the lead-in to this. Believed by who? Do we have reliable sources not just for the existence of these issues, but for the claim that they are the 'lead in' for this 'campaign,' and not, as no less a source than the New Yorker has stated, 'a pretense to make further harassment of women in the industry permissible?' Because without high quality sources that explicitly state that these issues are the 'lead in' to GamerGate, then all we'd be doing by including this section is ignoring the sources in favor of adding some original research. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, actually, several of the non-VG sources point this out (eg Vox's article); I know the rest are sourcable to high quality sources but I have to sort them out when writing this. (And irregardless, those that have following gaming news for the past several years see this easily, it's just a matter of sourcing it right). --MASEM (t) 02:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, again, you are missing the point about where the word "harassment" is going to be carefully used. In the situation post August 2014, it is undoubtedly harassment of several people, there's zero question about using that work with the sources we have. It is what happened before August that we can't just use "harassment" in the same way (as otherwise, GamerGate would have likely happened before that). Quinn and others did receive a large amount of negative criticism, and I think Anita even got death threaters earlier, but very few sources called that "harassment" in the way that that has happened recently. That's all I'm saying - before this point it was certainly an issue of sexism and treatment of women in the industry, but not necessarily harassment. --MASEM (t) 02:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

They link these specific issues to the development of GamerGate? And there was no harassment of women in video games prior to August? It sounds like you want us to give more credence to the GG claims that their movement is really all about some important issues in gaming than our reliable sources do. The harassment of women is a serious, ongoing and well cited issue. The new yorker states that Quinn's harassment has been going on for 18 months. You seem to be applying a much lower standard of evidence to pro-GamerGate information than you are to the much better cited information on harassment of women in the industry. And all in the name of correcting bias? -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's be clear. There's the harassment that we're talking about here which has an implied misogynist slants because the key people that have been harassed have been all women. Then there's the harassment pre-August which the IDGA and the FBI are looking at, across people of both genders eg [4]) It's harassment, but a different nature. I just want to make sure we don't imply - unless stated by sources like that for Quinn's past - that the harassment before August was all perceived to be driven by misogyny. --MASEM (t) 03:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that your framing of this section - which in essence restricts it to information with a decidedly pro-GamerGate bias - makes it unhelpful to include here. If you can cite this information as relevant to GamerGate, weave it in to the rest of the article. -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Er, no it's not. I'm trying to find the balance because it is very easy to load this article with well-sourced, anti-GG stuff (nobody looks favorably on those who harass others, even if it is only a subset of the larger group, which is the start of a number of problems), and this is why people are calling out the article as biased. Hence the need to try to find all middle grounds here. --MASEM (t) 03:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Being "unbiased" isn't about giving 'both sides' equal time; it's about fairly representing the information we can properly source. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

With the understanding that there is a systematic bias in the media due to this as well that one side (the pro-GG) is going to be scrapped across the rails because of the actions of a few. But you're getting lost in the details and go back to the bigger picture and why the need for this Issues section: as it reads, "suddenly" there was a huge backlash against game devs and journalists, which is absolutely not true. There are issues - sourced to above - that have been brewed for years and months and GamerGate is the flashpoint of all that. Is this necessarily saying their views are right? No. But it is providing the necessary context to understand the concept further. --MASEM (t) 04:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If reliable sources have a systematic bias (and that's if), Wikipedia has to have the same bias. Please get your views published somewhere before proposing their inclusion here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No, we actually are supposed to be aware of systematic biases and avoid pitfalls of this. For example, nearly every VG related source that would normally be an RS for other video game articles is immediately a problem here (simply because they are one party on the side of this debate) and we can't use them to a great degree. --MASEM (t) 04:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

With the understanding that there is a systematic bias in the media due to this What understanding is that? Are you seriously telling me you think The New Yorker and The Washington Post have compromised their integrity by allowing 'systemic bias' in articles about video games? That is quite simply not how Wikipedia operates. You don't get to take this quantity of reliable sources who are all presenting the information in the same way with the proverbial grain of salt because you think that they're hiding something. We are avoiding 'systemic bias' by preferring mainstream media sources over gaming-specific ones.

The harassment of women and misogynistic attitudes in the gaming industry and community are well cited and have been present for years. Based on our reliable sources, those 'issues' have been brewing for months and years as well, and this is a 'flashpoint' where many in the industry were finally forced to confront those issues head on. What you're doing here is whitewashing, plain and simple. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are supposed to be aware of systemic biases, but that doesn't mean we intentionally slant articles in the opposite direction from what reliable sources are reporting.

The reason a lot of sources proposed here aren't reliable isn't because they're "one party on the side of this debate" — sources are not rejected off-hand merely because they are biased. The reason many sources are rejected here is that this article does not center around what video game came out when, or whose hot new video game is more popular than the other. This article centers around extraordinarily sensitive allegations about the private lives of living persons, and our policy simply demands that we have different and more stringent standards for reliability and credibility when we deal with contentious and negative claims about living people.

In short, a source that we may find acceptable for reporting an opinion about a video game is not necessarily acceptable for reporting allegations involving the private lives of living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

What we have to be careful of is to present this in light of what is a more popular opinion external to WP that still believe this is a manufactured/campaigned strategy that is based on misogyny and everything else (about ethics, etc.) is a smoke screen. Nearly all the non-VG sources out in the last couple days are clear that it might have started like that but it has become a minority voice, and are striving to explain why this is happening. At the same time, no good RS is going to come out in any manner to say "we support harassing people" by writing the pro-GG side in a full positive light. So that's the bias we have to be aware of, the elephant in the room that no one wants to say out loud, directly, that harassment of any type to any person is bad. So the important part of these latest articles is how they have tried to understand, why are gamers angry, without trying give credence to the idea that harassment is an acceptable tool to express opinion. This doesn't mean we bury the fact that this all started because of harassment, in August, but that we cannot present the issue aligned with the popular external opinion that it is only a campaign of harassment. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If the good RSs are not 'coming out in favor' of GamerGate, we can't, either, no matter what you think their reasoning might be. If the sources 'ignore the elephant in the room,' we do it too. Verifiability, not Truth, remember? The SPAs and IPs I can understand, but you're an admin. I know you know this stuff. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying we write these in a manner to make it look like pro-GG'ers are right, but that, from these RS, they have framed the other arguments that the pro-GG side have presented as to why they have taken issue with Quinn, Sarkeesen, etc. These RS are not trying to justify if these are fair or not, just that these are arguments that they are presenting, and as such we should be too. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Then why all the digressions about the 'popular external opinion' and the 'elephant in the room' and the 'bias' that reliable sources have in not 'painting GG in a positive light?' The misogynistic tendencies of this campaign are still by far the best cited and creating a section devoted exclusively to presenting the 'issues' for which this is a 'flashpoint' and requiring that the well cited prior history of misogyny and harassment be excluded is completely inappropriate. If you can explicitly link your bullet points to GamerGate, please do provide the citations for that, but we're not excluding the ongoing harassment of women from any 'issues' section: Zoe Quinn was harassed for 18 months leading up to this debacle: this was a 'flashpoint' where her harassers found a way to pretend they had some moral high ground in harassing her. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

'Misogenystic tendecies are best cited'? Oh please. Those are only accusations and never got proven, and got plenty of disproval by the #notyourshield movement. I realize you want to call GamerGate misogenystic because it fits your world view best, but it's not. MicBenSte (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think perhaps you need to review what the reliable sources are saying on this issue. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

We've already been over this the past week. Someone who wishes to initiate an edit war isn't needed, tyvm. As you can see on the talk page, it's been a lenghthy discussion. Also, there are more and more RSes showing up covering both sides. Source 4 (Forbes/Erik Kain) was one of the first. Just check it out if you're open to convincing. MicBenSte (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The sources that exist primarily cover the harassment of figures like Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, and the 'corruption' issues are given minimal if any coverage. This article needs to reflect that fact. You may believe that #NotYourShield 'disproves' the well cited misogynistic aspects of the movement, but without sources to support that contention it isn't useful here. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain how you can read the Forbes article as somehow covering this without a harassment focus? Harassment is in or the instigating point for every section in that article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Kain covers both the harrasment as well as allegations of corruption within the gaming industry. MicBenSte (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't the question: the problem here is with the framing of a proposed section on the 'issues' of gamergate in a way that excludes the most prominent 'issue' of the entire affair. Yes, there are reliable sources that mention the issues that Masem wants to include, but they are never presented as the primary focus, so we can't do that here, either. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, there's a difference here I'm seeing. Harassment is a symptom, these issues are causes. That's the difference here. There is no denying harassment happened but these sources rationalize the above issues are why some have turned to harassment to address this. If we separate it like that, it makes a lot more sense. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, this may be completely off topic, but I would like to know what your basis is for believing that harassment is caused by indie games or distrust of journalism or the changing nature of journalism or the changing nature of "gamer" or really if there is anything that "causes" harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The reasons why gamers, upset with something (whether a politically-changed indie game, or favoritism by journalists, or a number of other issues) turn to harassment, is probably well described here [5] " Fans are, by definition, fanatical. That passion for the books they read, the movies and television they watch and the games they play can lead to amazing things from cosplay to tribute operas, from charities to art. But that fanaticism can also lead to a level of obsession that can trigger some very bad things like threats of death, kidnapping, torture, stalking and financial ruin." (and that was last year). --MASEM (t) 19:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Does that in any way disprove the more reliable source's coverage of this as a campaign motivated largely by sexism and hostility to women in gaming? It seems like you're trying to explain away this obvious hostility towards women as anything but sexism, using a single industry source and ignoring the many mainstream sources that contradict it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Has any source proven that this is driven by sexism and hostility? They've suggested that as a reason, certainly, but there is no source that proves this is the only reason for this. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Your're moving the goalposts. I'm talking about this proposed section, where you are attempting to present only the issues other than misogyny. That's inappropriate because, your one industry source aside, there is a substantial body of mainstream sources that treat this primarily as an issue of hostility towards women as the major issue of this movement. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No I'm not. Again, harassment is a symptom, it is not an initial cause for why this exploded. Yes, since then, the debate has considered the factor of harassment as a problem in the industry, but that harassment has to come from somewhere, and it is the dissastifaction in these areas above that are the sources for that. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Harassment is a 'symptom' of misogyny, which is well sourced as one of the 'issues' behind GamerGate. We're not going to ignore that. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

To say that "harassment is a symptom of misogyny" implies that the harassment in question is motivated by the gender of the target. This is not in any way established. In fact, there is a fair amount of evidence - in the form of what happened to Jack Thompson several years ago when he tried to critique the video game industry - that the situation for Anita Sarkeesian would not be any different if she were male. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The misogynistic nature of this harassment is well cited. I'm not merely saying "she's been harassed, she's a woman, therefor she's being harassed because she's a woman." We have multiple high quality sources that have noted that these people are being harassed because they are women. The history of hostility towards women in the gaming industry has gotten considerable coverage. There's really no way around it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Alleged details

The word "alleged" is necessary and proper in the discussion of Gjoni's accusations as a whole because many of his claims and accusations have not been verified or discussed by reliable sources. We do not need to use "alleged" when specifically discussing Quinn's relationship with Grayson because that has been independently verified and discussed in secondary sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Complaints regarding article neutrality

This article could be shown as the perfect example of Wikipedia's faults. The opening was now changed "centered on the harassment of women in the gaming industry" as if somehow all the sources said people were one day bored and decided to harass women.

In the response section "Anita Sarkeesian remarked regarding the misinformation campaign against her "One of the most radical things you can do is to actually believe women when they talk about their experiences," and noted that "The perpetrators do not see themselves as perpetrators at all... They see themselves as noble warriors."

What does this have to do AT ALL with the article at hand, the source doesn't cite anything at all about GamerGate, she didn't speak about it. Someone reading this article can seriously tell me as it is, it's neutral with a straight face?

It's really sad that respectable Wikipedia editors let people who campaign to make these sort of biased Wikipedia articles stay like thisLoganmac (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I've reworked the lead, as you are absolutely correct that the wording was poor and implied something else. --MASEM (t) 04:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Who do you think you're trying to kid here? Stop kowtowing to every Tom, Dick, and SPA that scurries across the talk page, please; changing "centered on the harassment of women in the gaming industry" to "sparked by the harassment of members of gaming industry" de-emphasizes the very real fact of misogynist harassment of women in the gaming industry, not watered down to just all people involved. Tarc (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not in any way established that "the very real fact of misogynist harassment of women in the gaming industry" has anything to do with the political objectives of gamergate. Literally the only reason that anyone in support of gamergate is talking about harassment, or feminism, is because they keep being forced to in order to address these sorts of accusations. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That's an extreme POV that is not supported by sources. There is certainly the original popular opinion but that has since changed over the last few days with several reliable sources going into other aspects of this like the ethics and the like. Again, we cannot take the stance that this was some orchestraed effort to drive a few people out of the game industry, as there is zero reliable sources for that. --MASEM (t) 04:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The reliable sources literally say in black and white that the issue involves sexism and harassment of women in the gaming industry. Please stop ignoring the reliable sources which have been posted here literally dozens of times. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No; the reliable sources talk about an issue they want to talk about, and then make tenuous connections back to the #gamergate tag. Sarkeesian's video came out before anyone was using the tag, and AFAICT, so did her initial round of complaints about harassment. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to believe whatever you wish. Asserting that all the reliable sources are biased is an interesting, yet wholly irrelevant, claim. By policy, Wikipedia articles are based on what the reliable sources say. If you think Wikipedia is intended to be an alternative media platform to allow you or others to challenge the mainstream viewpoints and statements expressed in reliable sources, then you fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia. We aren't Indymedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Whatever your thoughts about the state of the article, it is inappropriate to encourage drive-by complainers who post inflammatory accusations directed at editors on this page. I've toned down the header accordingly. Gamaliel (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There has been harassment on many non-woman (the journalists), the woman who have been harassed just yell the loudest and make a bigger fuss. There has been articles that harass/insult all males, accusations and using male as a slur/insult, the woman also have a lower standard of what is considered harassment. Yes Zoe and Anita have been subject to harassment but you are ignoring the hundreds of others who have been harassed by sjw's just for speaking their mind. Also have you checked out #notyourshield ? that shows that thousands of woman are on the side that is committing "misogynist harassment of women". Retartist (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

yeah, because no one in their right mind considers hundreds of death threats, rape threats, and the public posting of personal information "harassment". come on thats just what boys do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That is the EXACT words used by opponents of gamergate, also stop censoring my comments, if my comments can be quoted, the originals can remain Retartist (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

so.... everyone who believes that hundreds of death threats, rape threats, and the public posting of personal information constitute "harassment" is an "opponent" of gamergaters? they probably have a lot of "opponents". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thats not what i said, I was referring to your quote "come on thats just what boys do" (a tactic used as a false flag), I have admitted that zoe and anita have been harassed BUT not as much as they make out. They have claimed that the WHOLE movement is a harassment campaign; its not, just a small minority of the movement (and some false flags). You are also ignoring all the sjw's that advocate for "the death of all men" or the doxxing of a 10yr old. How about you guys go on 4chan to gain some perspective, like some research of your own to gain understanding of the gamergate view instead of the smear campaign that is published by the only sources we can use. Retartist (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please support your statements with reliable sources. Making sexist claims that "women just yell the loudest" and "have a lower standard of what is considered harassment" and using pejorative terms such as "sjw's" is not helping your case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Tu quoque: You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism. Also ad hominem. I did not say all woman "women just yell the loudest" and "have a lower standard of what is considered harassment" I was referring to the group who do. "pejorative terms such as "sjw's"" please I was abbreviating 'social justice warriors' hardly a "pejorative term" it just seems so because it is built that way in your head. Also i don't need RS to support my claims as this isn't some specific wording for the article, its my response to your texas sharpshooter fallacy. Retartist (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, you appear to have passed a freshman-level debate class. You don't, however, appear to have a great grasp of Wikipedia policy. In clarifying your statement, you have stated that you actually intended to make sexist personal attacks on two specific people, and I have redacted it per WP:BLP. Wikipedia talk pages are not a location for stating your personal opinions about living people. We aren't a forum or a debate class. If you don't have a reliable source for it, it doesn't belong on this talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I checked the edit history out of curiousity. The accusations you redacted very clearly referred to specific women, which is the only thing that gives you any justification to remove them under WP:BLP in the first place. Your description of them as "sexist" is objectively false, as they only made reference to the accused's gender in order to identify them, and did not in any way imply that their gender had anything to do with the claim. The clarification also does not state what you claim. Quit trying to represent things as sexist that aren't. This sort of nonsense is exactly why people are upset.

I'd also like to invite the general public to note which side of this argument is calmly pointing out logical fallacies, and which side is using rhetoric like "Congratulations, you appear to have passed a freshman-level debate class" and making reference to "Glenn Beck"-style conspiracies.70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to believe that making a clear reference to longstanding misogynistic tropes of women as "shrill" and "oversensitive" isn't sexist. Nobody else is obligated to believe it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

But no such reference was made. Quit misrepresenting other people and projecting your stereotypes onto them. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit: i have noticed you are also going for reviewer rights good luck :) BUT don't use it to push POV under the guise of BLP or as you put it " In particular, I am involved with monitoring and improving the Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and related articles, which have been variously protected and now placed under pending changes review due to repeated BLP violations that I have been active in removing" :) Retartist (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The leading is somehow now even worse, what source even says it arose "with the sexual harassment of Sarkeesian"? Can't we all just agree that most sources say it started, and this is the most neutral you could ever be, quite the contrary as the article is right now, with the posting of Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend of private information regarding personal relationships with influential people in the video game industry and that's it? Then the Forbes article states it gained traction after DMCA takedowns took place and censorship on reddit, but I seriously doubt that will ever be included in this article. Loganmac (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Social Justice Warriors

Do we really need to spend any words on what this term means? I don't think the following adds anything to the article:

"The pejorative[2][11] term "social justice warriors" has been used to refer to developers and journalists who are allegedly "interested more in the issues of representation and sociocultural meaning in games and game development, than the content itself", as described by The Guardian's Keith Stuart.[6] Writing in Paste, Garrett Martin said "The common use of the inexplicable epithet “Social Justice Warrior”, a sure sign of anti-equality intent, clearly marked this as a politically retrograde attack against minorities and their supporters."[12]"

14.200.20.112 (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to mention the term, then yes, we do need to explain what it means and its pejorative nature. However, I don't really know how much it adds to the article; I would be fine with just taking that entire section out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a definition for a term not used anywhere else in the article. I'm going to edit it out. 14.200.20.112 (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Right - it was initially inserted because another editor had inserted the term "social justice warriors" without explaining it. If we can agree not to use the term in the article, we don't need a lengthy explanation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we actually should have this term, despite the meaning of it. It is a negative term, yes, but it is used in many RSs and thus for that reason we should explain it to a small degree as to help editors researching the topic on their own to know what it means. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done

The complete article needs to mention the following:
- TFYC. This especially is a big sucking hole in the current article.
- Jenn Frank's resigation from The Guardian
- The 'gamers are dead' articles written by multiple outlets in 48 hours
- the petition to game devs
- censorship / Streisand effect
- Patreon usage/controversy over conflict of interest, leading to Kotaku and Polygon banning Patreon usage by its staff - Defy Media, who owns The Escapist, changing their ethics guideline to disallow any writers donating to a Patreon account to write about that person.

Also, somebody make a timeline. 14.200.20.112 (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

By 'somebody' I mean 'somebody other than myself, also not necessarily right away.' But here's some sources for the 3rd point:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/01/the-gamer-is-dead-long-live-the-gamer/
http://kotaku.com/we-might-be-witnessing-the-death-of-an-identity-1628203079
Opinions aside, they can be used as factual sources to say that 'gamer are dead' articles were in fact written.
Slate has a more comprehensive list: [6] 14.200.20.112 (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Digitimes claims perception of censorship leading to Streisand effect. That should be in there somewhere also. http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140906VL200.html?chid=8 14.200.20.112 (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

On TFYC: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/.14.200.20.112 (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Has it been done?BerserkerBen (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't need a timeline - we are not going to go down to try to document all the allegations and accusations, as that way lies way too much BLP and unsourcable events. Trying to keep this more high level so that we don't take a bias or break BLP. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Change to 'Background' needed - John Bain cited as coming to Quinn's defense - wrong citation

In Background, the following is written down:

"A number of commentators within and outside the games industry denounced the attack on Quinn as misogynistic and unfounded.[4][11] Quinn and her family were subsequently targeted by a campaign of harassment,[11][12] as were people who had come to her defense, such as internet commentator John Bain"

While Bain was negative towards the attacks on Quinn, he spoke out against the general accusations of misogeny towards gamers by members of the press and gaming industry. In return, he got called 'a gross nerd' by Phil Fish, got DMCA'ed for one of his videos.. (See source link 4, http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/) As for the rest - besides further expanding sources, the article atm, while having an subtle bias towards Quinn&co, seems relative fine atm.MicBenSte (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It is certainly not true (or at least, misleading) to say that John Bain came to Quinn's defense. The article should mention the DCMA somewhere, too, perhaps in a section about censorship (see above sources). Somebody other than me should write it, of course. 14.200.20.112 (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

New header, please let's discuss this

I took the bold idea of trying to rework the leading. I included a mention to harassment in the gamer community which was missing, left the misogyny aspect present in most sources and state the origin of the whole controversy as the blog post of Quinn's former boyfriend, as stated in the background section, backed by the Forbes source this http://www.cinemablend.com/games/GamerGate-Everyone-Hates-Each-Other-I-Really-Tired-67039.html and this http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/12/with-gamergate-the-video-game-industrys-growing-pains-go-viral/ "ever since an ex-boyfriend wrote a blog post implying that she had..." I'm sure there are more sources that back the statement that the blog post started the whole thing

"#GamerGate refers to a 2014 video game controversy that arose after a former boyfriend of indie game developer Zoe Quinn, posted details on her personal relationships with individuals involved in the video game industry. The controversy eventually led to discussions on journalistic ethics of video game journalism, as well as misogyny and harassment in the gamer community."

If you want to change anything let me know, I don't want to include it yet since it'll be reverted by the owners, keep in mind I included every aspect on the subject in a concise way, without going into details on Quinn's personal life Loganmac (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

First sentence. What's the difference between harassment and a harassment campaign? Are we alleging organization? Premeditation? Of the five articles cited, only the first mentioned the word 'campaign' in the harassment context. 14.200.20.112 (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the header again. There's the issue of harassment, but we cannot accurately state what was being claimed, nor do we need to in the header at this time. (as we jump right into what happened) --MASEM (t) 13:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Defining Harassment

Since the topic of "harassment" is a common thread in GamerGate, especially from one particular side, I think it's important to nail down a solid definition of harassment. For example, in the first sentence, it currently states that the incident was kicked-off by "Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend harassing her". Eron released a blog post detailing a series of abuses and disclosing them to the public. Does this qualify as harassment? Or airing of grievances? What about other claims of harassment that have occurred over the course of the campaign? What's the line? How about hostile twitter messages that fall short of outright threats? There needs to be a clear definition for "harassment" moving forward, and I personally think it needs to be more rigorous and citeable than someone calling something else directed at them harassment. 173.51.120.127 (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

We do need to be clear - this was what I was trying to say above - that today went people say "harassment" in headlines they usually implicitly imply of the sexual harassment variety, and not the type of harassment (floods of negative messages, etc.) that some of the cases reported are. Hence a word to use judiciously. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

calling someone a cunt, making disgusting sexual innuendos and sending naked pictures IS sexual harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. But there was the non-sexual type that has happened in relationship to the issues here - eg the COD developers being "harassed" last year when they rebalanced weapons in that. They got slammed with complaints including their own share of death threats, but that's not the sexual type of harassment (as the person targetted was a guy). --MASEM (t) 19:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Escapist as a Reliable Source

We need an organized discussion on the validity of the Escapist and Kotaku as reliable sources.

This is the wrong approach: Kotaku and Escapists are normally reliable sources, but we have to be aware that in this specific case because they are part of the VG industry they will have an implied bias, so we have to consider their articles on a case-by-case basis for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right. However, I think Kotaku has the specific distinction of being a major target, so though I think denying Nathan Grayson's relationship as well as changing their policies are solid pieces of evidence, a lot of what they say should be taken with a grain of salt. The Escapist, however, doesn't seem to be a target and they published an anti-GG video as well as things that might be seen as pro GG (though I would consider them mostly neutral.) EvilConker (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Kotaku is a blog site. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Can someone explain why this line is included?

"Anita Sarkeesian, speaking in public for the first time (at the XOXO Festival in Portland, Oregon) since she fled her home, remarked regarding the misinformation campaign against her "One of the most radical things you can do is to actually believe women when they talk about their experiences," and noted that "The perpetrators do not see themselves as perpetrators at all... They see themselves as noble warriors." "

I really don't get what that has to do with anything on GamerGate, the source specified doesn't mention GamerGate, it doesn't mention video games at all. I realize talking about Anita Sarkeesian attracts a swarm of people on Wikipedia, and I tried deleting, justifying but got reverted within, aproximately 30 seconds, someone didn't even try and justify So any reasons? Loganmac (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Because this article falls under the Sexual harassment in video gaming umbrella, of which Sarkeesian kinda knows or thing or two, having been on the receiving end of abuse similar to Quinn's. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and that's why it's mentioned that she was one of the targeted persons, but I have problems with that source in particular since it has nothing to do with the subject. Her saying that people should believe her adds nothing of value in my opinion Loganmac (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It has much to do with the subject, given that GamerGate has evolved into an omnibus term which covers the harassment, the misinformation campaign, even on-line identify theft. So one of the targets is too close to the subject? Quite the conundrum, but we'll try to give it WP:DUE weight. Heck, virtually every party involved is too close to the subject... It's the nature of the beast. kencf0618 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm worried that a she is one of the targets, her opinion is, of course, biased. If someone else that has not been involved made that comment, that would be different. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph is relevant because of the accusation that she and other women were making up the threats against them, and thus her words dismissing the accusation explain her point of view. I've updated the article to clarify what her words are about. Diego (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

False positive

It's not the job of the Cluebot to revert contributions that are not vandalism, so I did the proper thing - revert the bot and notify it as a false positive. I was restoring some of the content removed but found an edit conflict with Tarc's revert. Full reversals of an editor's contributions are not helpful, and being new doesn't make oneself wrong; the best course of action is to analyze what particular changes have been made, and revert (or correct!) those that are not improvements. Diego (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The edit was vandalism. Large-scale unexplained content removal with no discussion on the talk page pretty much qualifies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You have an imperfect understanding of policy; bold edits with the intent to improve the article are explicitly not vandalism, and encouraged by the guidelines. One can disagree with them and request more careful editing through WP:BRD, but qualifying them as vandalism is a failure to assume good faith. In any case, my point was that it's not the job of an automated bot to second-guess edits made by a human with a constructive intent; there's enough noise as is without the bots rebelling against their owners. Diego (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This topic area is being inundated with puppets of both meat & sock variety), SPAs, trolls, impersonators, and similar malcontents. When a user creates an account at 10:34, then makes their first and thus far only edit at 10:38, where said edit deletes over 3k of text, that is suspicious by any reasonable stretch of one's imagination. The edit also removed almost all of the misogyny discussion, watering the article down to nothing but one poorly-sourced side. That ain't gonna fly. Tarc (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"[[Proof by assertion|Proof by assertion] that there is a "sockpuppet conspiracy" and it shows that you don't have a bona fide interest in the neutrality of this article. Commentary on the movement definitely needs to be in the article, but opening the article with commentary is just out of line with. Please remember, Wikipedia not a soapbox for political commentary, and wikipedia has a neutral point of view.Pretendus (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Pretendus: I suggest you actually read the WP:NPOV policy which does not say "Wikipedia presents all sides as if they were equal" - instead Wikipedia's Neutrality policy is to neutrally display the mainstream academic views, in the proportion they are held. in this case it is clear that the mainstream reliable sources see "gamergate" as harassment and misogyny with some other stuff underneath that are trying to be positioned by the movement as a rationale for the harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Okay. I'm noticing edit-warring again. People, we either sort this out or the article should go away. We *had* an balanced article, going the full-misogeny route again or removing that isn't the way to go! MicBenSte (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The "full misogyny" route is the route supported by reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The first earlier group of sources claim that yes. The later group of sources say while misogeny originally was part of it, the movement has outgrown it while there are still shards left of it through some users.MicBenSte (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Which newer sources are these? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Forbes, Al Jazeera and others. Also, just noticed that http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201409032102-0024126 mentions death threaths against Milo Yiannopoulos, an right-wing conservatist in the UK who involved himself with #GamerGate. One of the few RS reports of threaths against 'pro-Gamergate'.MicBenSte (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that those are significantly older sources than the Washington Post, New Yorker, Marketplace, Toronto Globe and Mail, etc. articles that we have now, right? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I also realize that those are mass-media just copying&pasting the most of the gaming press, so it's just more of the same. I notice it in multiple countries, and I notice also that the mass media have done zero research on it and just copied&pasted most of what IGN and others claimed, with some changes to make it look like unique.MicBenSte (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

And your assertion that the Forbes article shows the coverage is not about harassment is pretty faulty. Every section in that article includes harassment or the previous section leading into it specifically identifies the new subject as having been initiated by/because of harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. You're entitled to that opinion. That doesn't make the sources any less reliable or authoritative.

When your argument is reduced to "all the mainstream sources are biased except the ones I like," it may be time to reconsider your position. Just a thought. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It's the same as you, TRPoD and that lady only going for the harrassment/'misogendry' angle as would be going solely for the corruption angle. Paying only attention to one of both is both WP:UNDUE, certainly since more RS are getting in past week, with the exception of the mass media, who take an broad approach to the conflict. I'm off for now, I've got better things to do then arguing with broker records... MicBenSte (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

the "mass media" majority view IS what we cover. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

We have to be aware that in the more recent articles, the mass media has tried to give weight to the pro GG side of this, thus meaning we should too. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be great if you'd link the sources you say support your arguments. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) People keep making this claim and not being able to provide any sources to back it up. the forbes article uses "harass" 8 times, "attack"= 1 "misogyny"= 5. you will need to actually provide some sources that dont focus on the harassment if you want people to take you seriously. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The point is not that they aren't speaking about the harassment and misogynm, but that in addition they are also trying to explain more rationale reasons. That's in all the recent articles. They aren't burying the harassment, but they aren't saying it's only harassment. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Eg source WA Post article (which does a fair amount time about the ongoing harassment): eg "Regardless of who started it, the hashtag’s caught on. Some users have latched on to #GamerGate as a way to troll gaming’s “social justice warrior” critics, while others have taken it as an opportunity to look at games media.". That refer's then to Vox's piece and the Guardian piece. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

“ first paragraph: Rape threats. A hacking attempt on her Web site. The online publication of personal information, including her phone number and home address. Countless comments on her Tumblr calling her a “slut” and worse, including one that read: “Are you reading this? Of course you are. I will kill you. ”

yep, they are not focused on the harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course we have to mention the harassment. There's no question. But then they delve into other aspects of this. I never said they weren't focused on the harassment, but they also focused on other aspects. So we cover both parts. Period. It's very simple. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me put this another way: I feel there's a few editors that want us to give zero weight to the pro GG side because sexual harassment and death threats are never justified actions (irregardless of the target or the reason). I agree with that sentiment, but as a WP editor I have to step back and recognize that reliable sourcing have since become clear that GG cannot be proven only as a campaign to promote this, and there are more voices that have not engaged in harassment/misogynmy, and that there are valid reasons they are frusterated with the industry today. As such we have to present the harassment issues (there is no attempt to wipe these out of the article), but we also now have to present that other side that the RS have reported on , on issues of journalistic ethics and the like. We cannot pretend that these opinions don't exist, that's a bias that the sources cannot support any more. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Its a myth that the article does now (or has ever) "ignored" them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The other issue, which has been mentioned by a number of reliable sources, is that it's never been clear exactly what #GamerGate wants. There was one source that even made explicit reference to it and the Occupy movement, discussing them both in the context of the difficulty of developing clear goals and aims in an entirely-decentralized movement.

As several sources have noted (and I agree with them), there is no doubt that there are honest concerns and honest people involved in it. But they allowed their cause to be hitched to a very questionable horse that's riven with misogynistic implications (not the least of which is slut-shaming) and, through lack of any sort of clear messaging and leadership, have been drowned out by an "army of trolls spewing bile" that have permanently tainted the very idea. It's perhaps unfortunate, but #GamerGate is now permanently associated with a campaign of misogynistic harassment and one can't just wish that history away. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, there no way we can ignore the harassment and sexism and misogyny issues. That has to be documented because that is what brought GG to the broad media attention. What we cannot hide is you state the "honest concerns" that have emerged. We cannot state if these only bore out when claims that GG was manufactured as a reactionary measure, or if they really did exist and were simply overwhelmed by the volume of the harassment claims and weren't heard until the situation calmed down. But they exist, and are documents, so we can cover them. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Changes in corporate policies have been made, and the #GamerGate hashtag on Twitter is as fervid as ever, but the intense misogyny has swamped everything else. Not the first time a crisis has developed beyond its proximate cause. kencf0618 (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"The intense misogyny has swamped everything else"? Have you tried actually looking at the feed for the hashtag? Where's the "swamp" of "intense misogyny"? Absolutely absurd. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

For example... why hasn't Nathan Grayson been discussed extensively by the movement? If there was a conflict of interest, he is at least as guilty of wrongdoing as Zoe Quinn, and he is the journalist who is supposed to uphold ethical standards. But no, #GamerGate has hardly bothered to mention Grayson, let alone unleash a torrent of harassment at him. The entire focus became misogynistic attacks on Quinn and her sex life, right down to the incredibly-juvenile "fiveguysburgersandfries" garbage. If your movement is not about slut-shaming, it's probably a good idea not to title your IRC channels with references to a woman's sex life. The double standard and specific targeting of a woman is not difficult to observe, and the reliable sources did not fail to observe it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Grayson has been discussed extensively by the movement. So have many other figures in gaming journalism. There are names involved that I'd never heard of before this broke out, that I'm intimately familiar with now. As for "misogynistic attacks on Quinn" being "the entire focus" of #gamergate, I refute you thus. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You have not "refuted" anything. You would need reliable sources talking about how #GamerGaters have equally focus on the men involved in ethical bias, been the subject of vicious harassment rather than the current topic of all of the reliable sources : the harassment of women and feminists. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Quinn's opponents

As per this reliable source, the allegations came from "Quinn's opponents." This isn't the most specific term, but it is certainly more specific than not even attempting to qualify who made the allegations; without specifying who made them, they would be effectively wholly anonymous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

But isn't that sort of a circular definition? The source has labeled them as opponents because they had made those allegations. What new information is gained by noting that those who made opposing allegations are opponents? Diego (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the source states that it began with people who had previously been opposed to Quinn because of the content and design of her game, who then "seized on" the allegations to further their claims.

In context: Quinn’s harassers didn’t like that she and other “social justice warriors” — a derogatory term for people in the video-game industry who use the medium to talk about political issues — were challenging tradition with products such as “Depression Quest.” Games were meant to be entertainment, not tools to further a political agenda. And when Gjoni published his tirade, Quinn’s opponents seized on her alleged relationship with the writer as evidence the video-game media favored her and other liberal game developers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Almost nobody knew about her before the allegations were published. Too, this is one source among many; this would give it undue weight, wouldn't it? Willhesucceed (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Getting a little better and neutral

As it is now it's pretty neutral (hope it doesn't get completely changed 24 hours from now). Only problem I got is the leading. The header is supposed to give a summarized version of the matter at hand. Currently it states

1. GamerGate refers to a 2014 video game controversy arising from allegations around game developer Zoe Quinn, leading to debates involving issues of sexism, misogyny and harassment in the gamer community as well as conflicts of interest between journalists and developer.

Someone who wanted to know about the subject wouldn't have any idea what the article is about by reading that. So as I proposed above, I want to change it to this

#GamerGate refers to a 2014 video game controversy that arose after a former boyfriend of indie game developer Zoe Quinn, posted details on her personal relationships with individuals involved in the video game industry. The controversy eventually led to discussions on journalistic ethics of video game journalism, between journalists and developer, as well as misogyny and harassment in the gamer community.

It states the origin of the whole thing (a blog post), why is Zoe Quinn controversial (involvement with people in the game industry), and what it came of it (discussions of game ethics, misogyny, and harassment). It's all still there, but a little more expanded to give a concise summary Loganmac (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No. The controversy is precisely over the fact that the allegations are wrapped up in misogyny. You're attempting to bury that part of it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof your comments so far have been nothing but blatant attacks

The controversy comes from the GG side, WHY does this hashtag exist? As you can see, Quinn hasn't been mentioned in weeks.

Yes she's the origin, but she's the spark NOT the fire. If I am a user on this site I expect to see 'why are all the gamers angry' and the sooner we show that, the better this article is. EvilConker (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Masem, nice work on the rewrite — I support your version, I think it's fine to be clearer about the allegations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I did a bit more, as EvilConker has a point, that this was a spark of long-standing issues (this concept borrowed from the Forbes article), so that it is aware this didn't suddenly magically happen overnight. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There still isn't mention of the journalism aspect in the leading, it says "as well as conflicts of interest between video game journalists and developers" someone that reads the article for the first time wouldn't even get why would there be conflict of interest, there has to be a mention that her relationships involved people in the industry, "allegations of professional impropriety by developer Zoe Quinn" doesn't say much. And of course NorthBySouthBaranof will agree with you, I wonder why Stradivarius hasn't come around over here yet Loganmac (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, "Professional impropriety" implies a conflict of interest, but I can see with whom making it clear it was with a journalist, so that that latter statement makes sense. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, leading seems neutral and informative now Loganmac (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It is looking a lot better. In a way the lede is trying to concisely summarize an especially messy encounter battle. There are a lot of agendas and moving parts involved! kencf0618 (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

none of the reliable sources have the focus as the allegations against Quinn. the focus is on the harassment and the other stuff. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

But they identify her case as the spark, that's important. We dont' have to analyze the specific allegations beyond pointing to Kotaku's statement "it didn't happen" but by that point, the ball had started rolling. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

And to add - at some point the lead will be expanded to reflect the contents of the article better, but we have no good idea of the full final state it might end up as to be able to do that. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverted back to TheRedPenOfDoom's last edit. Masem, you may be far more civil than the SPAs that show up here, but your POV-pushing is a carbon copy. We're not moving the article away from the fact that misogyny and harassment are the central aspect of the topic. Tarc (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep this article as neutral as possible. And the only reason I reverted was because the change removed Quinn's name (who, while may no longer be central to the issue, is still in name tied to the event) and rewrote the accusation aspect poorly. I simply flipped the statement around so that the misogynm/harassment issue is first, but without removing Quinn's name. I have no problem putting the emphasis on the misogynmy point first. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

per WP:BLP you are not going to frame this as about Quinn, and particularly false allegations made against her. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

especially when you are arguing on and on and on on this very page about how it is NOT about harassment but about "gamer identity" and "transparency in journalism" and "new media". Quinns entire roll in this is victim of harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not at all framing this about Quinn, nor is it a BLP issue. Whether you like it or not, her name is synonymous with GamerGate, only because it started the whole thing. Yes, she is no longer the focus of the issues, but it is the accusations against her that set off harassment and everything else. Is she a victim? Sure, but there zero reason to hide the fact that it all started with her. Additionally, your new text is extremely biased as well. The previous langauge was the right balance to introduce the situation. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

However, I will recognize that it might be okay to leave her name out for now from the lead, so I've reworked the original language to reflect this as well as to be clear the accusations were proven false). Depending how this article grows - for example if we find that a lead of 2-3 paragraphs is needed, we probably need to reintroduce her name in the lead, but leaving out now is fine. However I will point out it is not a BLP issue - there's no doubt about her involvement here (even as the victim). --MASEM (t) 22:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

false allegations about sleeping around and professional misconduct ARE ABSOLUTELY BLP concerns. How could you possibly not recognize that????? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

In the sense that they were made and discredited across the board in numerous sources means that the existence of those claims are not contentious, and thus the BLP issue is no longer there. If all we had were the ex's claims and no sources to counter that, then including them would be a BLP issue, no question. That's why many of the other issues and accusations that have been brought up we shouldn't even be touching because they are unfounded BLP claims. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That is also completely inappropriate interpretation. Even widely publicized issues about a living person MUST be handled with discretion and appropriately, such as not hiding as parenthetical afterthoughts the known fact that allegations are in fact false. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, and we can clearly say that the accusations were proven false, so there is no need for further discretion about her name in conjunction to GamerGate. Sourcing shows Quinn's name in nearly every recent article discussing the situation as a whole, all clearly establishing that the accusations were false and that the situation all began with her. Further, placing something that wasn't mentioned before in parans is not hiding the fact. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

In a BLP we present false accusations as false accusations. any pretense of "oh later we identify that they are false over there in that parenthetical comment and so we are OK" is purely outside the scope of what the clear intent of BLP means and what it explicitly says. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind: not all of the ex's accusations have not been shown false - only those that relate to Grayson and Kotaku. We are not going to touch the other ones because that is BLP, but we absolute should make sure that the ones we know were false are now established to be false. But it is not BLP to report that there were allegations made against Quinn (but not what those allegations were without confirmation either way) in light of Quinn's role in the larger picture here. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I dont think your case is any better with : "BLP doesnt count for proven false allegations of professional impropriety and unproven allegations about intimate personal relationships."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Not, it's not; this fits with BLP. Remember that the factual information is effectively "Quinn's ex listed several accusations about her with a writer from Kotaku; Kotaku debunked these accusations towards Quinn.". There is nothing contentious about that statement given what we have in the sources, what Kotaku and Quinn have stated, and we are not giving any more exacting details and reporting it at a level that other sources. It would be different if we attempted to list out all the other accusations that Quinn's ex gave that have not been commented on by others (or even if they were but not given any weight or details), because this is an undeterminable statement about Quinn and thus would be highly contentious. Basically the BLP issue line has been crossed for us because of how much detailed coverage this has gotten in highly reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 06:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted here that the allegations made by Gjoni don't involve Depression Quest. My source for this is the allegations themselves, where he made no mention of DQ the first time around, and later in an edit explicitly clarified that he does not think any kind of "sex for favours" arrangement was present. The accusations "debunked by Kotaku" were not Gjoni's. As the article currently says, "This led to allegations from Quinn's opponents that the relationship had resulted in favorable media coverage." Let's please not lose sight of that. Accordingly, "the ex's allegations that relate to Grayson and Kotaku" have not been shown false - since the only allegations he made against Grayson were admitted, and the only allegation he made about Kotaku is that Grayson works there, which is also not in dispute. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Your revisions of the article are constantly enforcing that the attacks on Quinn and Sarkeesian are all there are to say about the event, though Tarc.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Additionally [7] this version of the lede is incredibly biased. I don't care if the actions the ex did were deplorable and immoral, the lead is not to call him out on that. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

per the sources you have been identifying as the "recent ones" that we should model our article on it is the exboyfriend's post sparked a virulent campaign and " Within days it 9the exboyfriend's post) had taken the internet by storm," if you are going to the crux , the crux is the disgruntled ex. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Using the language like "tirad" (sourced to the Wapost) is fine in the body of the article where we go into details of the ex's statements, but putting language like that in the lead biases this article from the start. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

there is no "bias" in presenting the material as the mainstream reliable sources cover it. and this is how the source that you yourself proclaimed we must base our article on because it reflects the most recent coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You are not reading what I said. Yes, one source comments on the ex's accusations as a tirad and that's fine to mention in the body, but unlike the idea of the whole thing sparking the incident (which is a though repeated throughout many sources), it's only described in one, so as it is a biased term, it should not be in the lead. --MASEM (t) 00:17, 16 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 " . I could go on, but "tirade" seems appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that multiple RSs made the same subjective judgment doesn't make that judgment no longer subjective. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

When did Quinn's ex make "false allegations of professional impropriety"? As far as I'm aware, he made allegations of personal impropriety, but never made any professional allegations except, possibly, for one (which was never confirmed, so I'm unwilling to repeat it here). The claims of professional impropriety were made later, as a result of people reading her ex's claims. I'll re-read his post to confirm, but I think the timeline is a bit out here. - 00:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We have several sources that state the ex claiming or at least implying professional impropriety (eg [8] which then was picked up by Quinn's opponents. --MASEM (t) 06:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Other sources, AFAICT, don't say that. The source you gave as an example is from "an intern with the Style section" of the Washington Post, so it ought not carry the full weight that the publication normally does. It links directly to the allegations, which objectively don't make those claims. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Implying is a long way from making direct allegations. He did imply that there may have been an issue with one of the people, but that person wasn't Grayson - he didn't imply or state that there was any professional impropriety with Grayson, and we also have sources which highlight that. Given that the core issue with GamerGate is to do with questions about journalistic integrity, we need to keep the personal and professional allegations separate, as they were made by different people, otherwise it may be misleading. - 08:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:WRONGVERSION

I thought the consensus was to leave the page as it was, not to change it for a few weeks (except obvious blp)? The page has changed for the worse, becoming more skewed towards the POV of the media and the sjw's. Can't we revert it to the old version that was only a little biased not this one that is heavily biased? Retartist (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This version is much less biased than the version that was protected as it tries to help frame the side of the pro-GG better. --MASEM (t) 02:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop 'Framing' the Article

I have noticed over the past few hours that all edits that have been made to neutralize the article have been changed back.

In addition, there seems to be an uncomfortable use of the word 'tirade' and a focus on things unrelated to how GamerGate came to be.

I think, and it seems so, that the release of Depression Quest and Quinn's actions BEFORE August are not relevant except for the following: WizardChan allegations, TFYC conduct, and Eron Goji's post, and possibly in extension GAME_JAM as it's the article in question. These three (four) have made a very noticeable impact in the progress of GamerGate.

I don't think it's reasonable to think that the harassment she received before has anything to do with the criticism (and harassment) she's receiving now. It's an entirely different beast and she could have made any game and the results would have been the same with these allegations: I repeat, this is not about Zoe Quinn. She is the spark, not the fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilConker (talk • contribs) 02:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The details of what happened in the past with Quinn and the harassment she got before this due to releasing DQ is very important to set up why the accusations were there, and then to set up some of the aspects of the issues the pro GG side have. --MASEM (t) 02:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Then it should also be noted that the supposed harassment prior to release of DQ, came from a site called Wizardchan, according the screenshot ZQ posted herself. Wizardchan is a an exclusive community/imageboard of adult male virgins. They have no direct connection to "Gamers". Shubhransu (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Some background has to be set considering this all precipitated around the time the game was green lit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Correlation does not imply causation, Also, DQ was greenlit in January. That's 6 months of separation. DQ is irrelevant. EvilConker (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

DQ's criticism put her name on the map as a target; and the harassment from DQ continued throughout the greenlight process onward. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hashtag

Due to the large number of sources in the article treating this as a hashtag, I had added {{correct title}} to the lede, but it was removed once by Masem citing commonality as it not being a hashtag (contradicting sources) and by PigArcher citing a lack of consistency in Wikipedia naming conventions. Neither of these are the case. "#GamerGate" as a hashtag is in use in several of the sources, and the article itself refers to it existing as a hashtag before the whole incident was given the name.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the hashtag seems to be in common use as the name so I think this makes sense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Both the non-hash and hashtag have about an equal number of hits on Google News. As such, it would be better to consider both: "GamerGate (often referred by the hashtag #GamerGate)...". Since we can't move the article to "#gamergate" because of the technical limitation, this works out fairly to cover both. --MASEM (t) 06:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Some comments on neutrality

I've read some of the reliable sources and have some observations.

1. This isn't about broad issues of misogyny or harassment in gaming. It's about about a relationship that went south. None of the many involved characters are candidates for broad accusations or summations. Exploring the various titillating aspects of Zoe's relationships or whether they cross journalism or employer boundaries is simply below the bar of notability and cross privacy boundaries.
2. It is not acceptable to broadly characterize Zoe's treatment as misogynist or harassing. Not because it isn't, but because the privacy boundaries and the BLP boundaries that must be crossed are clear policy violations.
3. None of this is notable. This should be deleted or stubbed. It cannot be fairly presented if all perspectives can't be explored and all perspectives can't be explored because, quite frankly, they aren't notable public figures. There is no reason to presume/assume/speculate/publish a particular account from a particular POV as if it has more validity that any other. It would be easy to swap the gender roles of bf/gf and make the gf the blogger and the bf the one accused of cheating and the immediate problem with the opening paragraph is clear: there is no way to characterize either side as "false" or a "tirade' any more than it is acceptable to speculate on motivation. The article should be stubbed because, quite frankly, it's not notable enough to overcome the privacy considerations and ultimately all accounts of the relationship are primary sources.
4. Just because something exists on the internet doesn't mean WP needs to publish it. Users won't find the the stolen actress photos on WP. Not because it's illegal to host or it's not notable enough but because it's wrong.

Stub this article, remove BLP violating accusations of misogyny, tirade, cheating, false, lying, etc, and leave it bare without taking a side in what is basically a relationship dispute. The short answer is we are not in a position to know any of it because ultimately there are only primary sources and the advocates for those primary sources. --DHeyward (talk) 06:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If you think it should be deleted, the AFD is still going on. As to all your other points, we are going with what the secondary indepenent non-VG sources say - that this is harassment and misogyny by a subset of gamers towards a few noted people. --MASEM (t) 06:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really. That's a POV pushed by supporters of that POV. There are no secondary sources unless you think relationships have secondary sources. Gender is easily reversed in this type of scenario and it is incorrect that one side is "right" and can identify the other with pejorative terms. It's a BLP violation at minimum to dismiss one side of a two sided account that has no objective view. There are other sources that support the other side but they are no more "secondary" than the ones presented. --DHeyward (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:PSTS, sourcing like the New Yorker, the Telegraph, the Independent, and the Washington Post are all secondary sources for our purposes; that have evaluated the situation and made some analysis on it. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Masem, I have to disagree with you there. Only take a look at the contents of those secondary sources, and you'll note it mostly pushes one POV, while paying just the minimal note of the other POV. The analysis is almost not there.MicBenSte (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources can have a POV, that doesn't limited them fro being secondary sources. And if the mainstream media is only focusing on one side, we are supposed to reflect that, though we (myself and others) have tried to find the other points to balance this out better. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The Independent is an opinion pieces. Here's a news source that isn't reflected at all [9]. There is nothing inherently wrong with that source and reflects an entirely different perspective. The New Yorker is neutral on Zoe's past but makes no judgements other than the bloggers threatening harm are bloggers threatening harm. --DHeyward (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

TFYC are radical feminists??

How are The Fine Young Capitalists "radical"? Is there a source for this? Have they done literally anything other than attempt to fund a charity for female gamers? I'm pretty sure the answer to both of those is "no." This is weasel wording at its finest.

This article needs to be deleted. This is an ongoing event, with strong biases on all sides. It has become very apparent that we are not going to arrive at a neutral article like this.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.160.234.90 (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Per [10] : "So we have TFYC, a self-described “radical feminist”..." and [11] "As a radical feminist group..." (their words). --MASEM (t) 07:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If they have applied the terminology to themselves, and we don't have any reliable source which disputes that classification, I see no valid reason for removing that self-identification. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

TFYC has declared themselves so on their site.MicBenSte (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Radical feminism is a form of feminism. "Radical" is not a weasel word.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC

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.

---

What should be done when most of the RS (media) support their own side of the debate in a debate that is RS (media) vs the public? Retartist (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We use that media carefully and instead make sure to use independent sources to frame the overall story (as we have done by using stories from Forbes, WA Post, Telegraph, Independent, New Yorker, LA Times, etc.). --MASEM (t) 07:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It really depends on your unsupported presumption that this is "the media" versus "the public." There's no evidence that 99% of "the public" cares about the issue (I'm pretty sure Gallup's never polled it) and there is plenty of evidence that a significant number of people outside "the media" share the view of GamerGate that you ascribe solely to "the media." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Stub it with extreme prejudice. Remove all pejorative words like cheating, misogynist, unethical, harassment, etc. There are no winners nor moral high ground in this issue. Presuming there is turns NPOV on its head as this is basically a relationship dispute. There are no credible sources except primary and those unreliable sources that would publish primary source accounts as objective truth. This violates core WP principles. --DHeyward (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Seconded. It's a NPOV nightmare to begin with. Citation Needed | Citation Needed 12:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• This is not an issue. It's not like "the media" is some cabal, complete with secret handshakes and passwords. And the only thing "the public" agrees on are the positive effects of breathing, though I'm not entirely convinced of that. We already have a wide variety of viewpoints from reliable sources, enough to show that we don't need to worry about it. Woodroar (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC).
• Neutrality is a very important consideration and there is certainly a risk of the "walled garden" effect with media sources feeding off each other and re-reporting the same things over and over. The best way to counteract this is to emphasize diversity of sources. "The media" is not monolithic. This issue has received international coverage. Skimming through Google News I see pieces written in French, Spanish, Dutch, German, Portuguese, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Czech, Norwegian, Russian, Swedish, Croatian, and Italian. From the English sources I immediately see American, UK, and Indian coverage, and I'm certain there is more to be found. Apart from language and national diversity, chronological diversity is also extremely important. We will probably want to add modern RS perspectives to this article in 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, etc. The way this issue is perceived in the future will be much more neutral than how it is perceived "in the instant". Diversity of sources could also include coverage of extremists on both sides (though in this particular situation that might push the bounds of BLP). Anyway the main point is that we have to work within the limits of WP:RS, but the way to fix this kind of bias is to diversify the sources. -Thibbs (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue people have with the media, which I believe is a legitimate reason to NOT use specific language from that media that shares an opinion, is that Leigh Alexander is mostly responsible for gaming representation with these media sites, and wrote the article for Time. IF we are to use these sources, make it clear this is a DEFENSE argument, and OPINION, you can use facts but do not use their language other than when framing their opinion. This is NOT an essay. Do not use 'quotations from other sources' in your sentence as if you're proving a point, because the point is to NOT prove a point. The point is to be neutral. EvilConker (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that we are not using the Time article for framing the situation, because of exactly that - Leigh Alexander is a full time video game writer and while her opinion is valuable, she won't be 100% unbiased, and thus her opinion is relegated to the responses section. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

What should be done? We cite those reliable sources and write an article about it, that is all. If someone does not like what the sources say about the matter, those someones are are free to go elsewhere and blog about it; they are most assuredly not free to try to get their opinion represented in an encyclopedic article. Tarc (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• If by "the public" you mean 4chan, I recommend we stick to the reliable sources :P Kaldari (talk) 17:04, 16 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.

Biased 2

I would also like to chime in that I too felt that the article read as extremely biased and one sided. It's obvious the writer is a supporter of Zoey Quinn and "that side" of the debate, painfully so. Nothing is mentioned as to why the actual "campaign" over the whole thing actually happened, nor is any of the circumstances not related to Zoey even mentioned. Frankly, it's questionable why this is even an article, at the very least, it shouldn't be viewable in it's current format.

I would agree this articles changes 2 or 3 times and it clearly has nothing to do with gamergate anymore and is trying to paint zoey in a good light this needs to be removed or locked till its can be unbias and her supports stop trying to use "alleged" to preface proven things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.13.111 (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 98.247.74.43 (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The article paints a rather accurate depiction of what happened though. The entire thing has nothing to do with "nepotism" in game journalism, because no such thing happened. The writer Quinn is said to have slept with only briefly mentioned her in a single article before they had a relationship. IRC logs have also been shown by Quinn in which the people who began the "movement" plan it for the express reason of ruining her reputation. There has also been talk of physically "punishing" her. This has as much to do with corruption in video game journalism as it does with table lamps.96.28.205.179 (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@96.28.205.179: This is incorrect. Nepotism is the heart of the matter and what kept the ball rolling on the entire affair. Had this only been a troll event then it would have burn out within a week. The fact is that the revelation by the ex-bf got the ball started but the links to nepotism is what kept everyone engaged. This was compounded by the later attacks on gaming culture by news outlets focusing on the harassment aspect and ignoring everything else. It did not help that many of these outlets had ties to the people in question. The IRC logs were all done in a public room and the veracity of the claims that this was a giant troll effort are to be had with a grain of salt as this ignores the calls for keeping the story running based on the nepotism being discovered. Subsequently, the initial airing of dirty laundry by the ex-bf became little more than a catalyst as further ties between devs, writers, and media outlets began to show. Sadly, the fact that many of those in people question (including Quinn) are having their testimony held as truth without a counterpoint on Wiki is a bit disconcerting. Brainplay (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@96.28.205.179: Claiming "no such thing happened" is factual dishonesty or simply ignorance. Publications like Escapists and Kotaku had to admit that some of their ways of doing things were wrong and implemented changes to their policies. It is also worth noting that Kotaku had to add disclosure notice in a couple of articles by Patricia Hernandez that she indeed covered games developed by her close friends. These articles were written over an year back. This reddit page has all the details of it - [12]. These disclosures can be seen on [13] and [14] and [15]. Also worth noting that disclosure was only added after #GamerGate made the relationship between Hernandez and Anthropy public. So no one can deny that nepotism was blatant in online journalism. Shubhransu (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is clearly biased, this line - "#GamerGate refers to a controversy in video game culture in which long-standing issues of sexism and misogyny in the gamer community became high-profile on social media in August 2014." should be changed to "#GamerGate refers to a controversy in video game culture in which long-standing issues of alleged sexism and misogyny in the gamer community became high-profile on social media in August 2014." as it is just an opinion or a citation should be added if it is based on any factual research. Also, "near the end of 2013, Quinn stated that she had been harassed by a number of members of the gaming community with statements similar to "women cannot relate to anyone with depression" is factually incorrect as the cropped screenshot she posted was taken from a site called wizardchan, which is an exclusive community and imageboard of adult male virgins, most of them suffering from depression and social anxiety. It is a not a community of gamers. Shubhransu (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

A very shoddy page at best; very evident of a bias, a number of sources cited are articles that where nothing more than opinion pieces, not factual, no connection between the person threatening Anita and #gamergate has been shown ergo Anita is not relevant to the page, as others have said, parts that claim the movement is based on sexism and misogyny are only hearsay, anyone that acts in such a manor is generally condemned by the movement, there has been plenty of pro-gamergate people who have faced similar persecution, page is written as if this is fact, why do I see no mention of the censorship anyone that was pro-gamergate faced mentioned? Reddit alone had 20,000+ comments deleted in a thread about it, alleged racketeering involving Phil Fish and Indiecade might as well be included at this point, more evidence to support that than what there is to support a good portion of stuff in this article. I could keep going, but I think my point has been made, the page just doesn't show enough from both sides.Noeyez (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

To all my newly minted friends, I suggest you actually read Wikipedia's neutrality policy, particularly the section that talks about how we achieve neutrality here through proportionately representing the mainstream sources. Once you have read that, I would have you take a look at what we consider reliable sources and how we do not make analysis about documents ourselves and rather leave the analysis to the published mainstream experts. When you have done that and then come back with loads of reliable sources that are not focused and the harassment and misogyny, then you may begin a legitimate discussion of bias. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Now that you're linking to WP:NPOV, you could yourself review the section about WP:STRUCTURE and how you should take care that the overall structure is neutral, and avoid an "apparent hierarchy of fact" where some facts are segregated to make them look controversial or false, and others unduly favor one point of view. Diego (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Set up archiving on this talk page?

Lots of rejected edit requests and old threads, so I'll be bold and set up auto-archiving if nobody objects. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 13:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I took care of it. Dreadstar ☥ 22:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Conduct

Remember, this is Wikipedia. Do NOT use this article to further an agenda/your opinion. Keep this concise, keep this on point, do not do your own 'linking.'

Several of these articles linked have a bias. This is not an essay. This is an enyclopedia. IF an article has bias, do not quote it UNLESS it is framed as a 'counter-point.' Therefore, it should NOT be in the background area, ONLY in the 'criticism' or defense area.'

We need to present facts, a timeline of what is happening when this began. When this began is August 16th, so let's make it about August 16th onwards.

You wouldn't mention that Micheal Brown was some 'random black kid' because the South Carolina Tribune said they were, that is an opinion, not a fact. The same rule applies here.

This is not where you do your own sleuthing, drawing red lines, etc. This is where we present facts.

And insulting another user is completely unacceptable.EvilConker (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that secondary sources have identified Quinn' problems with the gaming community before the GG accusations, we cannot ignore what happened before Aug 16. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

They have identified, not linked. A link is an opinion. Masem, I realize your expertise is with video game articles so let me make a better analogy:

This is the 'gameplay mechanics' section. In the mechanics section you talk about what happened, how it plays, etc. You do not give an opinion on that. In the Development section you say what the developers were thinking. In the reviews section you say what reviewers had to say, THAT is where the opinion is, and it has to be fair and balanced, which is not what this is right now. Our goal with the background is to make people understand a timeline of GamerGate, what happened in GamerGate? When did it happen? We aren't here to do analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilConker (talk • contribs) 14:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The stuff on DQ and what happened to Quinn before is not opinion. It happened, this is why when her ex brought up charges there were some that jumped at that to follow up on her former problems. She had opponents before her ex's statement. That is not an opinion, that is well established fact. Also our goal is not to provide a timeline of events as that means we would get far too much into the details of all the accusations that have been made; it is to help the reader understand the background and nature of what GG is and why it is appearing in mainstream press. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"This is why" is an opinion. You are doing your own sleuthing and coming to your own conclusions.EvilConker (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope - several secondary sources make note that Quinn's problems started with DQ and this only amplified that. Its an issue covered by sources and thus would be POV to ignore. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sighs* EvilConker, Masem is right in that it's relevant at it's base. Masem, please be aware, as I said to you before - there can be too much detail.MicBenSte (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, we have to be careful with the amount of details, but all the parts of that first paragraph are necessary for two reasons: to show why Quinn has been targetted, and to show elements of the resentment gamers have on titles like these that tie into the larger complaints from the GG movement. That para is right at the size it needs to be. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it's relevent enough for it to warrant a copy of the content on its page. I think 'Depression Quest developer Zoe Quinn' linking to the Depression Quest article is a clearer alternative. Remember, the point is concision and neutrality. And how that paragraph is currently written it's neither concise nor neutral, so I think the correct movement is to delete it or heavily revise it. Can you give me a case to why this paragraph is neutral and should be kept?EvilConker (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

WP articles should be reasonably self contained. It is necessary to set just a bit of background on who Quinn is and why she was a target, so it is necessary to explain the harassment she got in releasing DQ. We're not going into the mechanics or details reception of DQ here, that's why that link is there, but to simply jump into the accusations against Quinn does not help a reader who has no idea about the recent politics of the video game world. It is completely appropriate in context. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone trying to get this article neutral will get their edits reverted

Unproductive grousing. Gamaliel (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

At this point editing article is pointless, some people have taken over and made it their own. That leading is the most POV wording I've seen in my life Loganmac (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC) People need to understand that while not everyone on the pro-GG side has been involved in the harassment or misogynmy, it is unavoidable that a small fraction have been, and as such , the media (non-gamer even) is giving that side very little weight because it is very difficult to give any rationale justification for harassment. Yes, there are honest efforts that I am trying to find and include to present those pro-GG that are against the use of harassment but feel there is still a voice to be side, as to include those, but we have to struggle against the fact that mainstream press are not going to present a favorable view of a side that uses tactics like harassment to get their way, even if that was only a tiny minority of the segment. That's the way mainstream media works. If anything, the gaming press has tried to look to understand the issues more, since their the centerpoint of some of the issues. We cannot create favoriable coverage of the proGG side (or even valid criticism of Quinn et al) if reliable sources do not cover that. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC) In which case you'd need to start asking questions regarding the presence of the article itself. If due to RS-reasons Wikipedia cannot create an balanced view, while out on the rest of the Internet on blogs etc people are showing what is, but they aren't considered RS and aren't getting any attention - what does Wikipedia hope to achieve then by maintaining the article? It's the same situation, as for example, trying to debunk Colin Powell's claims about Saddam Hussein's WMDs shortly before the 3rd Gulf War - about next to none RS tried to debunk it. Thus, if you tried to create an balanced page about it at that time, chances are high you'd land into the same frustrating situation as now with GamerGate. MicBenSte (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC) By that logic, we should remove all stories about terrorism, since no legit media source will take the side of terrorism as a valid action. There's zero problem with having an article on a topic that is going to be unbalanced in the coverage in mass media, but we should try to include any and all valid non-fringe points of view explain the rationales behind the pro GG group (which we have, they're not yet all in place but there are several to add more). --MASEM (t) 18:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC) I've just read somewhere that the tag #GamerEthics has been claimed as a way to discuss the implications of the incident in journalism and gaming, without the baggage of harassment and misogyny. I'll try to track the page where I found it; if reliable sources report it, it can be good a way to expand coverage on the other side of the debate and improve neutrality of the whole thing. Diego (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC) I believe that this article is biased and it is an incredible shame that that is the case but I feel that this can mostly be attributed to the fact that all of these events are very recent and I don't think I would be wrong in stating that because these events are almost entirely taking place over the internet, this website will unfortunately be vulnerable to this sort of behaviour. Hopefully, with time, things will simmer down and we as editors will be able to look back at the whole scenario and as well as saying "Well that was a mess" we will also be up to the task of documenting it on this article. Neither side of this argument is perfect and I believe there is no right or wrong side, simply that there are right and wrong people on both sides.MojoSimpson (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Julian Assange commented on Gamergate-calling censorship involved "pathetic"

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.

---

[16] I think this is an interesting comment, from a notable person.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It'd be interesting if it wasn't Reddit, sadly enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicBenSte (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 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.

Section removed per WP:BLP

In this diff, I have removed allegations about a living person which are poorly-sourced, derogatory and contentious in accordance with the biographies of living persons policy. It has been previously discussed that APGNation is not a reliable source; while it may be acceptable for claims about TFYC's own actions, that effectively-primary-sourced interview is not acceptable for derogatory claims about other people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

APGNation has an editorial team that controls what is posted on the site. That qualifies as a reliable source. And the content of the interview in question is mentioned throughout the other sources we have on the page, including in the section.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Having an editorial team does not in and of itself make a site reliable, and even if it did, these accusations are not even being presented by them as fact. They're TFYC's claims, written in their words in an interview on a decidedly third-rate gaming site. We need much, much stronger sourcing to even include this information with a 'TFYC said' qualifier, let alone present it as fact. We can't include any potentially defamatory information about a BLP subject that is only sourced to another individual's claims in a very weak source.

We need much better sourcing from more reliable sources to include this level of detail: the high quality sources that we have on GamerGate rarely to more than mention that TFYC exists (and in at least one case note that GamerGaters' donations to the project appear to have been out of spite.) As it is we're scraping the bottom of the sourcing barrel for most of the information that's in the article: we're giving undue weight to what the mainstream media is treating as a footnote. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The dispute between Quinn and TFYC is mentioned in Forbes, and TechCrunch mentions the connections between the Indiegogo hack and GamerGate. We are allowed to use statements about the group to describe their involvement. I will agree that their statements on those around them regarding their attempts to reach out to the press to allegedly be shut out by Quinn need stronger sourcing and in my revisions ot the section I have not mentioned them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong:, thanks. That's what I was looking for - some better secondary sourcing and avoiding a dubious unsupported statement about a person's actions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 September 2014

Put an "s" on the end of "accusation" so that we adhere to basic rules of grammar. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

A separate, but minor request, the use of "supports" in Masem's edit here should probably be changed to "supporters".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Both are done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)