Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Why are we citing First Things so much?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our article on First Things helpfully describes them. The journal is inter-denominational and inter-religious, representing a broad intellectual tradition of Christian and Jewish critique of contemporary society. With a circulation of approximately 30,000 subscribers, First Things is considered to be influential in its articulation of a broadly ecumenical and erudite social and political conservatism. Meanwhile, The Verge nets at least 20 million unique visitors per month, as of last March, and is almost certainly higher today. [1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blog discussion

• Whether the First Things article was religious or not (having read it, I don't see the religion stuff), First Things Is a journal which critiques society and GamerGate is part of that. The relevance of the source shouldn't mbe questioned .Likewise the claim that it's a random blog should be nullified, lest we trim all "random blogs" from the article. I'd say First Things should have a lot more say on "social justice" than Vox. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • But it is one blog post in a journal only tangentially related to videogames or journalism. The reason we cite such commentators is to explain noteworthy coverage, responses, and analysis about the subject; when the overwhelming majority of commentary agrees on something, it is naturally noteworthy, and we need large numbers of citations to establish that. On the other hand, when one person writes a blog post disagreeing (even if it were a noteworthy blog), giving them this sort of extensive focus amounts to WP:UNDUE weight; our article is not meant to be a catalog of every blogger's opinions on the topic, nor a place where people can fire off quotes from various blogs as a form of point-counterpoint; rather, it is meant to summarize the noteworthy views. Nothing about First Things gives me any impression that their views on this controversy are intrinsically noteworthy simply because this blog is saying them; nor, thus far, has anyone made a particularly compelling argument that the personal opinions this blogpost expresses are noteworthy in their own way the way (eg.) the large-scale reactions summarized elsewhere in the article are. Therefore it is mostly non-notable in the context of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @User:Aquillion -- are you aware that The Verge and Vox are also blogs? By the standard you just employed, everything cited to those sources should be removed from the article as well. Shii (tock) 13:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
      • They publish both news and commentary about the news; they're not just opinion-blogs the way that particular column from First Things is. We only cite their more opinion-oriented pieces, as far as I am aware, for their opinion in situations where we can establish that this opinion is notable (eg. as part of a list of many other opinions to establish that a particular interpretation is widespread and not just one random blogger commenting on it.) When they focus on the news, I believe they pass WP:RS; Vox does its own reporting and has a history of issuing updates and corrections when necessary, say, which is an important part of being a reliable source (as WP:RS says, "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections.") Both of them are also heavily focused on analyzing and interpreting the news, the media, and reporting, which are central to this topic -- we badly need the kind of in-depths coverage they provide in order to write about GamerGate at all, given how complicated it is. The First Things article, though, is just a blogpost in which someone expresses their personal opinion -- it makes no claims to accuracy, nor is there any reason to grant that author's opinion any particular weight beyond anyone else's. Their 'about' page, as far as I can tell, talks a lot about how they intend to confront the ideology of secularism and push a religious viewpoint, but very little about how they intend to ensure accuracy or reliability in their articles. This, to me, gives me the impression that their opinion pieces would be worth citing (carefully, with an eye to avoid giving their particular view undue weight) to give the opinion of people who oppose secularism and want to push for greater presence of religion in the public sphere in an article where the opinion of people like that is clearly relevant (eg. articles about religion), but it doesn't give any reason to think that stuff from their opinion-pieces is reliable for matters of fact, nor any reason to think that their opinion is at all relevant in a topic like this one. --Aquillion (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
        • This is a totally upside-down world you have pushed us into. Remember, this is a social issue, so there is no "right" side, only a general consensus. What you are saying is that Vox is a better blog source because they claim to have exclusive access to the deepest levels of metaphysical truth, where as First Things is inferior because they admit they are approaching issues from a certain perspective. This despite the fact that Vox has been known for grossly biased opinion articles and politically motivated false reporting, whereas First Things pursues some modicum of intellectual honesty. I really hope Wikipedia doesn't work this way.
        • BTW, I'm not actually objecting to the current use of the First Things article in the draft, I just want to make it clear that it is an RS on this subject and should not be stripped from the article, despite how inconvenient that may be. Shii (tock) 18:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
          • • I wouldnt cite the federalist.com as a source whose claims and analysis should be taken seriously. They are pretty much just a muckraker without any reputation for accuracy themselves. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
              • If your distaste for thefederalist.com means that you require additional sources on the fact that there is no land bridge between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, I will be happy to provide them to you. Obviously my point was not to endorse thefederalist as a reliable source. Shii (tock) 18:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
                • If you were not using the federalist.com to attempt to bolster your claim, then why were you linking to the federalist.com multiple times as you attempted to construct your position? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
                  • The Federalist is a bad source for what we do here. That doesn't mean they're a bad source in the outside world for information on other sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
                    • Sure, outside Wikipedia you can choose to use sources that feed you falsities, rants and pablum, but that doesnt make them not-bad sources for information. It just means that in your personal life, you choose to be fed from bad sources.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
                      • But enough about Vox. Shii (tock) 00:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
                        • Wait, I thought he was talking about Verge/Gawker/Kotaku/etc etc. Are they bloggers or journalists now? I haven't checked the daily alert on the distribution list today.. Ries42 (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of PeterTheFourth's revert of an edit by DHeyward

Hi! I've reverted your removal of a qualifying statement regarding a series of tweets made by Sam Biddle. This area is very contentious, and it seems important to me that we make sure to describe it as reliable sources do, rather than simply quoting verbatim. These quotes were only recently added (previously we only described it as a series of tweets), and I feel that if it is important enough to have the full quotes there we should also describe it in full. If you disagree, feel free to revert it and discuss your decision here or on my talk page. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't add or remove it, but I sort of see DHeyward's issue. Specifically, the quotes are the most important part, but each edit continually adds more and more before it, rather than getting to the point, the tweets, and then allowing the discussion to take place afterword (including the fact that many sources feel they may have been jokes, although in bad taste). Ries42 (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

CJR said a lot of things in that article and most are not kind to Gawker or Biddle. Rather than keep enlarging it with point/counterpoint, it's better to keep it simple. Biddle tweeted, it had fallout, -> media, activists and advertisers reacted. Point/counterpoint on Biddle's or Gawker's intent is largely irrelevant. --DHeyward (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

In that case, is it necessary to quote the tweets rather than simply mention them? We're suffering from an overabundance of quotes as it is, and it would be nice to trim them away. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, paraphrased is always better. Quotefarm articles suck. --DHeyward (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Would "a series of mocking tweets" be accurate? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"derisive" would be more accurate considering the reaction and apology. --DHeyward (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure 'regarding bullying of nerds' is the best phrasing (not that I have any suggestions for improvement), but it's already looking a lot better and more concise. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

To interject, I do not agree with removing the actual quoted tweets. While most of the time paraphrasing and removing quotes are good, especially when we have situations where there are dueling quotes (many instances in this article), in this case, the quotes are the actual disputed matter. Commentators, and hell, even those against Mr. Biddle may agree that they were a 'sarcastic joke,' that does not change the implied malice in the tweets. That is lost by not actually presenting the tweets, and the words Mr. Biddle wrote. We're losing important context by removing the words he spoke, as they are actually what is controversial and indeed, notable, about this section. We have an entire article to explain the context of why he wrote the tweets, and several commentators to explain what he "meant" by them; however, we shouldn't lose the actual words. It would be like removing Zoe Quinn's name from the article. Its not appropriate and I'm restoring the tweets. Feel free to add what you may feel is necessary before and after them, but the words should stay. Ries42 (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I've removed these quotes again, as proposed by DHeyward. The exact contents of the tweets are not important to understand what they were about nor the consequences. What is notable about the incident is that advertising was pulled as a result of campaigning, not that some tweets were made on twitter. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I really do not appreciate you removing the tweets again. Several editors have worked on this before you and DHeyward came to this section. At best, there was discussion by two editors over a period of a couple hours and then they were removed. That does not equal consensus. DHeyward made several edits, and I reinserted one part that I felt was necessary. There is important context lost by not just writing out the tweets at issue here. When the words Mr. Biddle wrote ended up costing gawker 'seven figures' in revenue, those words became pretty damn notable and important. Important and notable enough that even the Columbia Journalism Review article cited here felt it was important to quote the exact tweets in its article. Its like trying to talk about the impact of the Gettysburg Address, or MLK's I have a dream speech, without quoting portions of the speeches. Ries42 (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Regrettably, these two tweets were not as influential as the Gettysburg Address or the "I Have a Dream" speech. What important context is lost by describing them as 'a series of derisive tweets regarding bullying of nerds.'? PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course they're not as influential. That wasn't my point, the point was to show by analogy that there is context lost through paraphrasing. Of course this is always the case, but most of the time it isn't that big of an issue. The context lost is the actual messages that he wrote. We can either spend 2-3 paragraphs analyzing exactly what he meant, how he said it, etc. etc., or... we can just post the tweets in question and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. The tweets ARE the context lost. Ries42 (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) becuase they are not 'a series of derisive tweets regarding bullying of nerds' - they are a series of twits calling out gamergaters using the metaphor of "bullying nerds". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Unproductive. Do not revert as per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement. Gamaliel (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bullying is a metaphor now? Weedwacker (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Perhaps you should take a Lit 101 class. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC) I again note you are not being appropriately civil with other editors. Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That issue aside, do you have a reliable source for the statement that Biddle's tweets are "a series of twits calling out gamergaters using the metaphor of 'bullying nerds'" rather than what the plain (verifiable) language of them actually says? Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not advocating that we call out the metaphor in the article, but neither will we use an inappropriately trimmed quote to misrepresent that the twit was about bullying nerds rather than gamergate -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

In the interest of explaining myself- I didn't believe that was the best description of the series of tweets, I was just reinstating DHeywards edit because I believed a summary was better than the exact quotes. Apologies if this was inappropriate. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree with TRPoD often; however, I believe we're in agreement here that it is better to just quote the tweets at issue and then follow with analysis from the sources of their meaning than trying to skirt around the issue and some how paraphrase them without just stating what was said. Ries42 (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

GG to be covered on Nightline tonight

[2]. It'll be up online here [3] by tomorrow at the latest. --MASEM (t) 03:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is ABC's transcript:

When Jumping into Gamergate Turns into Fearing For Your Life -By JUJU CHANG (@JujuChangABC) and KATIE YU.

And now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go away and read it! --TS 07:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Some of the stuff on page 2 of that we should look to add about the industry response. I could have sworn I've read from a high quality RS that there are a number of journalists upset that the major game co's have not really addressed anything in relationship to GG, including the issues of sexism that have come out (as described here). Also the fact that there's one quoted GG supporter expressing what I believe is a common issue regarding Sarkeesian (but not a BLP issue). --MASEM (t) 07:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I copied the link to the ABC transcript to Talk:Anita Sarkeesian in case it's useful there. I think you make a good point about ABC Nightline's declaration here:

"Nightline” reached out for comment, multiple times, to gaming companies such as Rockstar Games and Ubisoft to ask about the way women are portrayed in their games but have received no response."

Now that by itself would be a little too thin for my liking, because after all it's a stock journalistic statement indicating that at least they tried to get industry comment, and so its absence should not be read as a case of unbalanced journalism.

But I also recall that others have commented on how rare industry comment has been. Overall that topic may rise to the level of significance where we would want to devote space to it. --TS 07:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the Adobe/Gawker sources explained it. It's a lose/lose scenario for every company that has commented regardless of what they say so far. Adobe, specifically, was skewered. There is no upside for any company to comment. Rather, most of the major companies have women in prominent positions and highlight it (a la Intel and others). Their bottom line is profit so controversy is what they avoid. --DHeyward (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Getting the Swatting reports right

We seem to have had a hell of a time reading and reporting what The Guardian is saying about the Swatting attacks.

I've made this edit to clearly identify 8chan as "a hub of the [Gamergate] movement". As I discussed elsewhere, attribution is a difficult matter when there is no movement, per se, just a heap of horrible events, pace Guardian.

The fact that 8chan is where many of the more distasteful and newsworthy activities of Gamergate are organised is material to the topic. We can leave the business of parsing the names of 8chan subforums to offsite venues. We're definitely not going to play the "it's not Gamergate unless somebody mentions the hashtag" game. --TS 05:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The piece is extremely misleading. The picture, for instance, is not related to the instances. It's stock. It also uses the term "successful" for one of the SWATing attempts because Portland had 20 officers pass through the scene. PPD said it wasn't successful and no SWAT teams were sent and it was quickly verified as false. It talks about a random SWAT callout in Utah but it's not clear that was a "SWATing" call or whether just a recount of a random SWAT team. Most importantly, there is no corroboration of the caller to gamergate. In other words, it's a lot of hype. Both "targets" seemed to be aware of the attempt and neither were featured in our article before the calls but are now referred to as notable anti-GG figures but the caller is another anonymous but presumed gamergate supporter. --DHeyward (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

First, just because police didn't show up or went to the wrong door, it's still SWATing - the hoax calls were made, we have no reason to doubt that, but at least in the latter case, the people had given their local police the heads up this might happen. Second, even assuming the most possible good faith that no one honestly on the side of the GG ethics play is involved with baphomet or 8chan or the swats, the fact that the swats targeted people that have been identify as GG critics before shows how poorly that GG can defend itself when it has no structure or authority to assure who is really on their side and who is not; this is, as Tony points out, a huge flaw that most analysis have caught, in that this has been a movement hijacked by more malicious elements and they continue to refuse to move away or structure themselves to separate themselves from the negative elements. And the fact that this is still happening is a problem too. --MASEM (t) 06:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Mildly apropos this, I believe we do already have reliable sources in the article for the fact that Gamergate started as a harassment campaign. One of their few PR successes was getting some people concerned about journalistic ethics to hold their noses and jump on board. But that's already in the article. --TS 06:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

First, I never said it wasn't SWATing, rather it was not successful as it was described in that particular article. The very definition of success is a SWAT team responding. That didn't happen and portland police say it wasn't successful. The characterization of success is just one of the misleading elements of that source. GamerGate can't defend itself as it doesn't appear to be a movement in any real sense of that word - there doesn't appear to be a way to even identify members. They have been relegated to a role of Bogeyman. The fact that it is so disorganized that it can't be distinguished from random trolling leaves one wondering what it means to be anti-GG at this point and how are anti-GG people being targeted? If we haven't already named them, are they really "notable anti-GG critics" after an event but not before? I'd propose noting events and not people at this point, lest we find ourselves as being part of the problem. --DHeyward (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I moved some discussion of what 8chan was and how some GG moved there up a bit higher (under the Gamergate Hashtag), as 8chan's role becomes important in relationship to the Streisand Effect; that wasn't removed, just moved to where it was more appropriate. --MASEM (t) 06:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well caught. We now have far more sources on 8chan than we had before Christmas. Thank you, Santa! --TS 06:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, 8chan has gotten into a lot of trouble (not just GG related) over the last several days, and I expect we'll see more harsh words about it as those stories get around. --MASEM (t) 07:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Are we using the Washington Post's recent piece on 8chan? [4] It's quite recent but ties a lot of previously disparate elements together. --TS 07:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

We seem to be really terrible at reporting what The Guardian said. Once more I've had to restore what they actually said about the relationship between 8chan and Gamergate. This isn't some random board, it's strongly associated with Gamergate. --TS 16:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And this time I reverted you. You keep readding it, but it is CLEAR that the Guardian is describing with that section what 8chan is to an audiance that probably has never heard of it before. Continually putting it there is clearly an agenda based edit. We describe 8chan in depth elsewhere AND in its own WP article. It doesn't need to be there. If you want to add it further, put it in the description of 8chan or where the movement is discussed. Thank you. Ries42 (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears that there is an attempt to blame not-gamergate for the swatting which the reliable sources attribute to Gamergate. Why are we second guessing reliable sources? Hipocrite (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I should think we all here share the same agenda as The Guardian: to explain clearly to people who want to know the connection between the Swattings and Gamergate. That is why The Guardian says what it says, and why we should say it too. --TS 16:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The wording the Guardian source (outside of the title line) carefully does not say GG is responsible for the Swat. They say antiGG were swatted, they say that the boards these swats were organized from co-habit boards that GG refuges from 4chan have been using. They do not say "GG supporters are swatting", but they are leaving that likely conclusion to be left to the reader. If anything, they make it clear that this is only a segment of GG that might be involved. It's also clear from newer sources that 8chan, as a whole (not just baphomet) has become a central point for the organization and planning of things like harassment, doxxing, etc., not just that tied to GG. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I broadly support that reasoning. State the relationship. --TS 16:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian says "linked to the Gamergate movement", not "linked to the Gamergate controversy" or "linked to events happening in Gamergate". They specifically link swatting to the movement. Woodroar (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tony Sidaway: I agree that we share the same agenda, to explain clearly the connection between the swattings and Gamergate. I disagree that using an inline, implied, "explanaion" is making it clearer. "baphomet" and "8chan" are two different things, although connected. To use an analogy, you can correctly say that "The Earth" is a hub for Gamergate, because Gamergate occurs within some subsection of "The Earth". Someone on "The Earth" did X. Does that mean Gamergate did X? No. But if you say "X was coordinated in the "The United States", a subnation on "The Earth" planet, a hub of the Gamergate movement" you would be technically correct and may or may not be implying something without explicitly stating it. As editors it is our job to deconstruct the actual, explicit allegations that are important and completely, and clearly explain them. We explain what 8chan is, and how it is a hub of the movement, in a different section where we have the opportunity to go into depth and clearly explain what that means. The Guardian article doesn't have that opportunity, and frankly, a little sloppily, tries to do so in a way that leaves room for misunderstanding and implication that may or may not be intended. If the Guardian said "baphomet" is a hub of the movement, then you would have an explicit link to source. We don't source by implication though, no matter how reliable the source. Ries42 (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely "linked" to the movement because the swat came to anti-GG people. It doesn't say it was done "by" the movement. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I dislike using the "movement" language where there is no accountability; Gamergate as we write about it is just a sequence of one ghastly thing after another done by people to people for hideously distorted and pointless justifications, because that's pretty much how all our reliable sources see it. Either way, the reliable sources nearly all say this is part of the horrifying litany that is Gamergate, and the link is 8chan. I think we should make the link clear. That's the entire and sole purpose for which I opened this discussion section. We are really very bad at doing this, and I suspect some of that may be because there's this false idea that somehow we can authoritatively rule in or out Gamergate, by asking a spokesperson or something. --TS 17:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you dislike using "movement" language. However, reliable sources do use it in that form. Gamergate can refer to many things. When writing about it on WP, we need to be exact as to what is meant in a specific usage so as not to be confusing. Using implied language is not exact. While you are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to force WP to mold to it. Ries42 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And it's getting a bit day when people are seriously saying that Baphomet and 8chan as distinct entities. 8chan is an image board and baphomet is essentially a subfolder of that board in which certain activities are coordinated. Making that kind of distinction is like saying WP:AN and Wikipedia are distinct. The same users can post anywhere; the only difference is the name and the kind of post allowed. --TS 17:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Using wikipedia as an analogy doesn't quite work. Reddit is a more apt analogy. "baphomet" is to "8chan" what a subreddit is to "reddit". If something happened in the subreddit "GamerGhazi" which is very clearly NOT a part of the "gamergate movement", we can make an interesting implication, can't we? "X was coordinated in "GamerGhazi," a subforum of reddit, a hub of the [gamergate] movement." That line is completely and technically correct. The implication is that X was done by the gamergate movement. But the facts above clearly show that the movement is not explicitly linked to "GamerGhazi," if anything, "GamerGhazi" is completely opposed to the movement known as Gamergate. The same exact implication is made in the Guardian article, and without the explicit clarification of what "baphomet" is to the movement. Is it a part of it? You cannot definitively answer that based on the language within the Guardian because its unclear. That's why your edit doesn't clarify the situation, it just muddles it more. Ries42 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Tony, my issue is that language you are adding to the article is vulnerable to a misleading interpretation. "[S]watting attempts were coordinated through the "baphomet" subforum of 8chan, a board which had become a hub of Gamergate" can be interpreted as meaning that either 8chan or baphomet is a hub of Gamergate . The former of these is correct and the latter is not. We can do better. Starke Hathaway (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source recount of GamerGate

This guardian piece is a history of GamerGate. It appears much more objective in covering various viewpoints than the current or draft article. It seems odd that our article would be so divergent from this sources version in tone and content. They managed to avoid 'misogyny'. Are we on the wrong side of history? --DHeyward (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The article concludes that Gamergate became a magnet for sexist bullies who drowned out any substantive points. Well, actually, that's pretty much what our article says — that there were some people with good intentions, but they were long ago overwhelmed by misogynistic trolls who ensured that the movement's enduring public image would be of an angry, bigoted, incoherent lynch mob.

Avoiding a word that a vast number of other reliable sources use repeatedly to describe the movement based on the fact that a single source didn't use the word, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to be supportable. Moreover, "misogyny" is a synonym for "sexism" when that sexism displays prejudice against women. "Sexist bullies" who specifically oppose women are... yes, misogynist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah north you kill all of the fun RetΔrtist (разговор) 06:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

But seriously, the article concludes that Gamergate is unlikely to die – it will simply mutate. The article lists all of the grievances of the culture aspect of the 'weird, gay indie devs' and the patron supports etc. --RetΔrtist (разговор) 06:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a fine source, and very much in line with our article. There are many more ways of describing misogyny than using a single word. "Gamergaters seemed angry about ... the increasing number of women playing and featuring in video games" is a pretty effective way of implying that misogyny is in there. It's also a facet of Gamergate that generated a lot of activity and caused a lot of harm. This is why our sources write about misogyny a lot. --TS 06:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yea, the source doesn't counter anything in the article, it just starts from the idea of the movement, instead of the harassment. As I've offered before, we might want to think that this might be better written from that perspective (of the movement, creating controversy due to both their ideals and the means they (or others using the name) have done) but there's no pressing need at the moment to do that. --MASEM (t) 06:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Starting from that perspective would greatly improve the article. That was my point. The actions in a timeline are not disputable. Their relevance and role and meaning. though, is the difference. This source covers everything we cover but relates it in much more of a historical way from the viewpoints of the actor, rather than a characterization of the actor. --DHeyward (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we can use this to expand on the "culture war" section, as Retartist mentions above, this discusses the hostility to devs who are making non-mainstream video games as a motivating factor, which isn't touched on much in the current article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I should have made the distinction: gamergate doesn't care that these weird "deep" games are being made but that they are receiving too much coverage by journalists when the games are one step above a choose your own adventure book or that the latest Call of Duty won’t let you shoot nameless baddies - but instead ask you to talk about your feelings. --RetΔrtist (разговор) 11:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec) It's not just the word, it's the entire tone and substance of the narrative. That would have been an excellent WP article on this topic. It describes the start, buildup and demise of GG and reserves misogynistic activities for its chaotic end. Contrary to NBSB, misogyny is not a synonym for sexism. I don't disagree with the source at all. Our article isn't even close to that article in content or tone, though. Our article is a very different narrative. It's apparent to even an uninvolved reader which version is neutral in tone and content and it isn't WP. --DHeyward (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not how the English language works. Sexism: prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. Misogyny: the hatred or dislike of women or girls. So yes, if one is widely known for viciously-sexist attacks on women in video gaming, they will likely — and entirely fairly — be described as "misogynist." They have demonstrated behavior which indicates they hate or dislike women or girls.

You are correct that they are not strictly synonyms — for example, sexism can be unintentional, in which case it would not be misogynist — but that is obviously not the case here. The wide, wide array of reliable sources which specifically use that word are irrefutable, and suggesting that a single article which doesn't use the word, but which clearly expresses the anti-female prejudice inherent to Gamergate, means that we should remove or downplay the word, is simply a misuse of the source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, forget the word and I already knew I was correct. The tone in that article is that sexism (and tropes as an extension) has always been an element of gaming and only one part of gamergate. There are intentional female tropes in all media. The fact that you lump all intentional depictions of women in a sexist role as misogyny is a fundamental misunderstanding of language and perhaps why the tone of the article is so far off the NPOV mark. --DHeyward (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you're conflating two related issues: sexism in video games, which as critics such as Sarkeesian have readily pointed out also exists in other media where it is also criticised; and the misogyny of the death and rape threats and other attacks on women in gaming. This article is mainly about the latter. --TS 07:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not conflating it. Rape and death threats are easily defined as misogyny. The bulk of GamerGate, according to this source, is not about rape and death threats. That's why there is a difference in tone and coverage. This the key distinction: gamers are upset about the focus of journalists that try and fix sexism in games. In addition there are the rape and death threats. Those are two separate issues. We merge them in the article and it's clear from NBSB's explanation as to why. The source does not merge them. There is a clear demarcation between sexist depictions of women in games and actual threats to women in the gaming industry. One is sexism, the other misogyny. We don't distinguish and treat the group that seeks to keep gaming unchanged as the same people that are threatening death and rape. That is a huge distinction between the Guardian source for history and our article. --DHeyward (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources — including The Guardian — do not treat them separately, because the two are one and the same by Gamergate's own choice not to become seriously organized. Our article extensively discusses the impossibility of separating potentially-legitimate concerns from misogynistic garbage spread by sexist bullies because Gamergate has chosen to do everything anonymously on chanboards. As The Guardian article you cite discusses, the two cannot be separated — they are permanently attached at the hip and the very word "Gamergate" is permanently tainted. While one might wish for Gamergate to be about legitimate concerns with ethics in gaming journalism, it factually is not about that due to the fact that it was launched by, as The Guardian notes, unfounded accusations about Zoe Quinn, which were seized upon by an army of internet dwellers ... to police a woman’s sexual behaviour under the guise of promoting “ethics in games journalism”. The Guardian appropriately treats that claim as a facade hiding an ulterior motive of attacking Quinn.

You state that We don't distinguish and treat the group that seeks to keep gaming unchanged as the same people that are threatening death and rape. This is just so, because there is no way to distinguish them and there is plenty of evidence that there are many of the latter among the former. Not all, certainly, but many. Because Gamergate has chosen to be anonymous, leaderless and intentionally uncontrollable, there is no authority to claim responsibility for or disavow actions. Thus, anything which claims to be Gamergate is Gamergate, for all intents and purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Again this source manages to do what you believe is unpossible. If you cannot distinguish arguments, what they are saying and who is saying it, you may want to take a step back. The Guardian did it and didn't break a sweat or have to do linguistic gymnastics as you appear to do. --DHeyward (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

" Soon, an army of internet dwellers had seized on this opportunity to police a woman’s sexual behaviour under the guise of promoting “ethics in games journalism”." It does not, nor does it even try to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That's actually a good quote we should look at maybe replacing a quote from a less notable commentator with that. Could fit into either the Debate over ethics allegations section or the Misogyny and antifeminism section. — Strongjam (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, the article you cite notes that there are several arguments being made as part of Gamergate, but it does not suggest, as you claim, that the people threatening death and rape are entirely separate from the people who seek to keep gaming unchanged. Indeed, it notes "sexist bullies" are responsible for destroying the movement, who presumably want to keep gaming unchanged and are threatening death and rape. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

So adopting that tone, language and narrative is okay with you? It wouldn't take much to rewrite using that source as a template if you are indifferent to it. --DHeyward (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If by "adopting the tone" you mean that because this one report does not specifically use the word "misogynistic" that we toss out all of the other sources that do use that term and remove misogynistic from the article, no. I do not agree to that at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, not that at all. This source has the misogynistic attacks that arose out of Gamergate. We can certainly use that word to describe that aspect of Gamergate. --DHeyward (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I just remembered who Helen Lewis is.

"It reminds me of the screenwriters’ adage: no villain knows he’s the villain. He thinks he’s the hero in a different film."

I think it's wonderful if more and more people are enjoying her well written pieces. --TS 09:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I did. As politicians must know, you can knock down factual error after factual error but it means nothing if the narrative backbone remains intact. Cuts deep. --DHeyward (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I know you can't possibly be seriously proposing that we repeat the debunked lies of trolls, so I think at this point we are no longer engaged in meaningful, mutually comprehensible communication about how to edit the article. --TS 10:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh no. The guardian piece is not repeating any lies that I'm aware of. It's tone, content and narrative are much more neutral depictions of the same topic. I propose adopting it. --DHeyward (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I was responding to your apparent admiration for the notion that politicians know that a false narrative sometimes persists in the face of cold facts.

I love the article. I love ours, too. Ours has far more detail and, unlike this one, is the result of the Wikipedia process. It's fine to love both. If you like this Guardian article but not ours, I wonder if that's because it's written to be witty and entertaining and thus doesn't dwell on the darker side so much. That not what we exist for.

We write about five months of death and rape threats, failed attempts to put pressure on advertisers, women's lives ruined by constant bullying, and everything else, because that's what happened. --TS 00:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit to the draft by Singdavion

This discussion relates to this edit. A version of this text was posted by me as part of a greeting message at User talk: Singdavion. --TS 16:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

There are really two reasons for my edit, though I only mentioned one in my necessarily brief edit summary.

Firstly, as far as I'm aware, Knowyourmeme.com doesn't qualify as a reliable source for our purposes. To be sure, it's an award winning and popular website, like Wikipedia. But also like Wikipedia, it can't be assumed to have the reputation for editorial fact checking we expect of a reliable source (as far as I know).

Second, no matter how reliable a source is, single sources will inevitably have their own bias. We aim to counteract this factor by balancing the statements of multiple reliable sources. We would not recommend one single source as authoritative, as your edit seems to propose.

My reverting your edit should not be seen as the end of the matter. It's certainly conceivable that I'm wrong and that Know your meme is a reliable source, and then at the very least we could use it to help improve our article. --TS 16:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

He is continually attempting to reinsert without discussing. I think escalate at this point. I support at the very least he needs a timeout. While he may hold that opinion, its not the proper way to fix the article. If he wants a disclaimer, the only one I think could be supported is something along the lines of "This is still a developing issue. Some sources may report before all facts are available, and may be more unreliable than normal." But to say the entire article is a joke or wrong is just plainly untrue. Ries42 (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't come to such a quick conclusion. The third edit was a pure accident. Just excuse it. I haven't made anymore edits. No warning needed Singdavion (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --TS 17:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly true that we're still awaiting more considered, analytical coverage of the events described in this article. I hoped we could tag this article with template:Current but this topic simply doesn't qualify under the guidelines at Template: Current/doc.

It seems that our General_disclaimer must once again bear the weight of explaining that you shouldn't believe everything you read here (though of course we do our level best to achieve the highest standards). --TS 17:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of "movement" in lede

@TheRedPenofDoom: You are arguing over something that is settled. While it can be said that many reliable sources do not talk about, or give credence to the movement, many others do or at the very least refer to the existence of a movement. You've tried to edit the lede twice three times to remove it. Why? For your (inevitable) reply of PROVEIT:

The Guardian: "Five months on, the movement has faded to a background hum." The Guardian refers to a movement.

NYTimes: "That disclosure galvanized a movement on Twitter among people who used the #gamergate hashtag to attack journalistic ethics in the video game press." NYTimes calls it a movement.

When reporters characterize Gamergate as misogynistic, proponents say those views don’t represent the movement. Instead, many claim to be advocating greater ethics among the video game press." The Columbia Journalism Review refers to it as a movement.

Since when is TheRedPenofDoom's opinion more important than The Guardian, The New York Times, or the Columbia Journalism Review? Ries42 (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tony Sidaway: I'm hoping to avoid requesting for sanctions and the Admin Noticeboard for this. If we can settle it in TALK, that would be my preference. Please do not just revert my request for RedPen to stop again. Thank you. Ries42 (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

[you mean the " strange, rambling attack " is now back in play because it was mention once in this piece? or that "Over the course of the autumn, Gamergaters seemed angry about many things: the increasing number of women playing and featuring in video games; the sometimes overly cosy friendships between games developers and the journalists who covered their work; and the meaninglessness of “gamer” as an identity in an age where your grandma can play a £2.99 puzzler on her iPhone." is an actual description of a "movement"? and CJR "But if readers are still mostly confused by what it is, who composes it, and what they want, that’s because coverage of the so-called movement - See more at: CJR on Gamergate -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

As I've noted before, there are about 25% more hits on "gamergate movement" than "gamergate controversy". Yes, it's unorganized, its motives as a movement are highly in question, etc. but the group of people that support this are called in RSes as a movement. As a neutral source, we should prioritize the fact they call themselves a movement over any other sources, after which we can include all the criticism about it later. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

until you show they are "gamergate movement" and not "so-called gamergate movement" or "gamergate 'movement'" or "shadowy and threatening movement" ghits claims are pretty worthless -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

worthless As are your claims that a movement does not exist, no matter how much you want that to be true for whatever reason. Weedwacker (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources do address the fact that a "movement" does not actually exist as we cover in our article Gamergate_controversy#Gamergate_organization . There are sources that use the term, but mostly as a shorthand and not under any analysis of whats happening as a legitimate "movement" Archive 13 discussion. Given that our article covers the fact that sources specifically have come up with "its not a movement" we shouldnt be using the shorthand in the lead.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, that's picking and choosing the sources that claim it's not a movement. Other sources, like this ID'd above, call it a movement, and they themselves call it a movement. To be neutral, we must assume, for a brief bit of the article, that what the GG say they want (from reliable sources) is 100% legitimate, so when they have called themselves a movement, that's how we should call them. After we've done that short bit (since the weight of sources is far in the other direction), then we can include all that criticizism of that that is baiscally "Well you can't be a movement if you have no leadership or organization". But we have to be neutral and stay with neutral language, and if they call themselves a movement, then we must respect that. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

While it is "picking and choosing" it is picking and choosing the sources that specifically analyse the organization and structure and finding that they say "No movement" and giving them weight over sources that may happen to use the term as a shorthand. Utilizing sources out of context is inappropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If the group that this article is basically about is calling themselves a "movement" (with sources that support that point), we legitimately call them a movement, even if we call them self-described like that. The fact others have analyzed that and say "no, you're not really a movement", does not change the fact they, and by neutrality, we, consider themselves a movement. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, the groups claims about what they are and what they do does not impact the article when the sources review and say otherwise. We are not here to play white knights to save poor poor gamergaters reputation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

But we're also not here to attack them. When they say something about themselves that we can source - they call themselves a movement, they claim to have ethics issues - we remain neutral and report that as is, and then discuss how critics have attacked that stance. To ignore what they call themselves and only use what critics say is purposely ignoring sourcable facts to swing the POV of the article. Saying they call themselves a movement is in no way being a white knight to their cause, only to our neutrality. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "so called movement" /"self identified movement" . We can do that. But we cannot give credence to their self proclamations that has been specifically debunked by reliable third parties when they have looked at the claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That is the opinion of those sources (criticism), not fact. We present both sides of the issue neutrally, treating the GG claims about themselves legitimately, and then presenting the counterclaims and criticism as legitimate criticism as well. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't have to treat claims about themselves as truth, self-identified is fine here if there is serious debate about whether it is a movement (so-called I think is too much of an expression of doubt.) If they claimed to be our alien overlords we wouldn't write "They are our alien overlords, although commentators disagree." — Strongjam (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, they are self-identified truths about themselves that we can source through strong RS. This is not pulling from SPS sourcing, nor is it making their claims about others (eg regarding BLP) as true. Only they have self-identified themselves as such, and that even despite a wealth of criticism that says they really aren't, we stay neutral by using the terminology they want to use about themselves. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

again, GG's "truths" hold no water for us. Many of their "truths" have been completely and repeatedly debunked and they still claim the world is flat. And it is only some of them claiming there is a "movement" we cannot falsely claim that they speak for all GG - because, you know, they are not an actual "movement" with a platform and identified goals or leaders to speak for them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. As a neutral source, GG's claims about themselves and their outcomes that we can source to RS are key pieces of documentation that we should be covering as their side of the story is not insignificant to this topic. Their claims about others without evidence, we have to tread extremely carefully per BLP for certain, but when we have sources that say that GG claims it is a movement, we treat that statement as a fact. Even if those claims are factually wrong but they insist that is what they are about, we report that way. We're not here to judge them , right or wrong. Failure to give this legitimacy to what has been reliably sourced is basically eliminating one side of the issue, and that is not neutral at all. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality requires us to avoid stating disputed assertions as fact. — Strongjam (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

And its even more than that. We aren't commenting on what the movement entails, or is. Even the RS that disagree with the movement's goals, or believe that the movement is being disingenuous, they still refer to it AS a movement. Movement is about as neutral as you get. Ries42 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

again the fact that we dont have an actual word for "clusterfuck of anons being angry over a million disparate things on the interwebs and viciously harassing people under the same hashtag" and so they have sometimes defaulted to "movement" doesnt mean that we must accredit the clusterfuck as a "movement" when we have specific sources that have analysed it and said "not a movement" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT. No one is saying you don't have sources that say "not a movement". They don't suddenly make it so all the ones that say "it is a movemnt" PUFF and disappear. Ries42 (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

An unorganized movement can still be a movement. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A leaderless movement can still be a movement. Ries42 (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please provide sources focusing on the the organization and structure of GG and says "yep, a movement". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You are literally the only one who doesn't see it. The point is, you're inserting yourself too much into this particular argument TRPoD. You've made a value judgment and you're editing with that in mind instead of looking to the reliable sources. No one is saying that your reliable sources are wrong. There are many reliable sources that say what you've decided to push as your agenda. But even in those sources, they acknowledge something that you refuse to. That is not even counting the reliable sources that don't agree with your personal interpretation. I feel like I have said this before, but I'll say it again. You're entitled to your opinion. You're not entitled to force WP to mold to your opinion. Ries42 (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

again, WP:PROVEIT that there is analysis that it is a "movement" as we have sources stating otherwise and the otherwise is covered in the article and the lead needs to reflect the body. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There are 3 sources above that WP:PROVEIT. This is probably the weakest thing to be arguing over. Weedwacker (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I covered how each of those three actually does NOT support the claim (or has been declared as weak source that we should not use) If thats all you got, then we are indeed over. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenofDOOM: You did no such thing. Maybe in your mind you did, but I'm done trying to convince you that the sky is blue and the sun is hot. I have proven it. Several times. To everyone but you. Your standard of proof is off, not my evidence. Just to bury you some more, from the Draft:

Writing in The Daily Telegraph in the wake of those incidents, Bob Stuart summed up the hashtag's troubles, saying "GamerGate has since swelled into an unwieldy movement with no apparent leaders, mission statement, or aims beyond calling out 'social justice warriors'. ... When members of the games industry are being driven from their houses and jobs, threatened, or abused, it makes GamerGate’s claim that it is engaged in an ethical campaign appear laughable."[13] Unwieldy movement. But still a movement.

Singal was critical of the movement's lack of organization and leadership commenting on their "refus[al] to appoint a leader or write up a platform".[14] Its very difficult to be critical of something that doesn't exist. Clearly Singal must have made it up in his head, since he has the audacity to disagree with TRPoD.

Christopher Grant, editor-in-chief of Polygon, said that Gamergate has remained an amorphous and leaderless movement consisting solely of the hashtag so that the harassment can be conducted without any culpability.[112] Yawn, this is getting old. Its like everyone in the world understands what a movement is but you. Go to the toilet, see if you can have a movement there. I'm sure you'll post it here for us all to look at and then tell me to WP:PROVEIT again.

After a time, others joined in the movement, claiming that GamerGate was about “ethics in game journalism.” It’s a twisted warping of the movement’s beginnings, which were based entirely around invading a developer’s private life, harassing her, and making false accusations about a journalist. In fact, no journalists to this point were actually targeted. Pretty odd, don’t you think? Seriously. All I'm doing is Ctrl+F "movement" and following the god damn links. This isn't even hard. Ries42 (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

a group of anonymous posters who are ferociously angry about something new every week is not a "movement " - its just a chan board. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion has already been established on the topic and Wikipedia reports on the sources and not your disdain for the topic. If that's the best response you can come up with to all of those links, I guess that means we're done with this discussion. Weedwacker (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

And if this article was titled "The World According to Red Pen" you might be able to include that in the article. But it isn't. But I'll be sure to watch out for your proposal to rename the article accordingly. Ries42 (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

the world according to me and people like Oxford scholars -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I quite frankly don't see it either. There may be such a thing as the "movement" but it is non-notable. Practically every recent source describes it only in terms of the surrounding controversy. We describe things by what makes them notable, and that's clearly not the (incredibly ill-defined) "movement" but the controversy surrounding it. Other things barely get any coverage in comparison. Cupidissimo (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"Movement" is definitely a poorly chosen word that we should avoid using. We have several sources attesting that it's simply a hashtag that can be used by anyone, and that this has caused some of the controversy. Shii (tock) 20:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Even considering the hashtag, there is still a movement, but as critics have well pointed out, the only form of organization they have shown is using the GG hashtag to brand their complaints, and hashtag-based activism can be one of the easiest things to be taken over if there's little organization to back it. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Shii. I don't see the problem with just saying 'Some Gamergate supporters'. As far as social movements go it's hard to call it that when a big part of the story is how it's lack of structure has made it difficult for journalists to cover exactly what it's about and to attribute actions to it. Off-topic a bit, but perhaps we're witnessing the birth pains of a movement that will coalesce around cultural issues in video games.— Strongjam (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on this. Firstly, if quite a number of reliable sources cast doubt on, or explicitly deny, that there is a movement, we should probably look for a different word (which is a shame, I think, because it does seem to be a very loosely organised movement of some kind). If on the other hand, a large proportion of our sources use the word movement fairly consistently, we should definitely consider using (with precision and clarity) the term "Gamergate movement".

Having said that, before using the word in the lede of the article, even casually, we should probably find enough material to write a section about Gamergate considered as a movement. As it stands, we're going to confuse a lot of people by referring to some mysterious "movement" in the lede but not clarifying for what we mean in the body.

Finally, we should look for, and hopefully find and be able to cite, articles of the quality of the one Jesse Singal wrote after earnestly investigating Gamergate. If there is a Gamergate movement (and I suspect there may be) it's articles like this we need _at a bare minimum_ in order to be able to say what we mean as an encyclopaedia when we use the term "Gamergate movement." --TS 20:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A thing to consider is that most of the articles that are strong critical of GG being a movement are written as "They may describe themselves as a movement, but these are reasons they are not how we would normally call a movement due to a lack of organization, etc"; they don't come out "GG is not a movement" but instead beg the question if they really are. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Which is why we should be careful with how we use the term. Terms and language should be used in ways that most readers would understand them. Also, that's not begging the question. Sorry pet peeve. — Strongjam (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Strongjam shares my own grammar Nazi tendencies with respect to the term "begging the question", I see! Do let's see if we can funds enough material about Gamergate as a movement. Then maybe we can define what we mean, and then write a section, and then use it all over the article. At this stage, I'm a bit pessimistic about the likelihood of enough material being available, but we should make a start. --TS 21:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

One note, there already is a lot of information about "a movement" in the article as is. It might need to be reorganized, but just as a thought experiment, here is the current draft article and words that are used in the lede, followed by the number of times they're used in the article.

• misogyn- (includes misogynistic and misogyny): 17 times in the article (+8 references, +1 title)
• sexism: 6 times in the article (+4 in references)
• culture (used 3 times in the lede): 11 times in the article (+4 in references)
• Quinn: 33 times in the article (+14 in references)
• Wu: 9 times in the article (+3 in references)
• Sarkeesian: 13 times in the article (+8 in references)
• movement: 20 times in the article (+2 in references)

Maybe if we want to take the word movement out of the lede, we should remove it from the article. The lede is supposed to reflect the article. A word used more times than "sexism," "culture," or any form of the word misogyny, despite the opening sentence basically being: "This is a topic about sexism and misogyny in video game culture" should probably not just be removed... Just my two cents. Ries42 (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You're losing me here. What does the above comment have to do with whether Gamergate is a movement? --TS 21:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that, even if informally, many reliable sources refer to it as a movement and we have done so as well in the article. Ries42 (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That is probably more evidence that there has been a subtle push to misrepresent the random acts of anger and harassment as a "movement" than there should be in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Some comments were edited to restore comments prior to being alter without permission by a user who was neither of the original users. See here and here. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I noticed that Tony did this earlier and was very upset. Would this normally be a sanctionable offense? Ries42 (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Plausible, though that is something I am avoiding and since the content has not been altered again, I do not wish to take up. The only thing I would like to say is that I do not give permission to any user at this moment to remove my note above and this comment. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Is "movement" really an issue?

I apologize for (perhaps presumptuously) starting a subsection here, but is "it's a movement" or "it's not a movement" really an issue? I mean, across Wikipedia, we have Boy Scouts of America and Girl Scouts of the USA as well as reformers and hippies all described as "movements". Some have a clear-cut organizational structure with member rosters, and others don't, all based on reliable sources. It seems that "movement" has a sufficiently broad definition to cover all of these...um...movements. So why is it an issue? Again, sorry for the new section but if there's a clear reason to argue over it, feel free to close this section, I won't revert. Woodroar (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

there are some who appear to take the necessity of GG being called a "movement" very seriously- otherwise the random angry rants and harassment appear to be nothing more than angry ranters and harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a small issue to be honest. After reviewing our sources many of them do say 'movement'. If birthers and truthers are movements, I guess I don't see why gamergate can't be either, although it's a very confused and disjointed one. — Strongjam (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Birthers and Truthers have a coherent (if absurd) place to which they are "moving" - convincing people that: Obama is in fact a furriner and not an Amurican / the hijacked planes were just a cover-up for a government conspiracy. GG is just vile vile harassment, "but ethics", baby seals, incoherent claims, thrashing at a new random targets every week. No "moving" towards anything. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, sorry, that is not a proven fact, and in fact there's evidence against that. That might be the perception of many, but we don't write factually as if the public opinion was factually correct. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That is the perception of the reliable sources whose perception is what we follow. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

We do not follow perception. That perception will get the weight in the critical analysis of GG, but we do not treat perception as fact. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed WP:UNDUE and WP:V? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

RedPen, please just do a reread of the sources. Perhaps you're just working off dated information. Its getting silly though that you're really this bent out of shape about a word. A word that appears nearly universally in every reliable source. Why is it so important to you to remove it? Ries42 (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Nowhere does it say that WP takes the predominate opinion as fact. It says we will have the most predominate part of the article about that opinion, for certain, but we do not write as if that opinion was factual, right, or wrong, we just document that opinion. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not an "opinion" that GG is regarded as anything other than toxic morass of antifeminism-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

toxic morass That's certainly your opinion, and also a sick idea for a death metal band name, thanks for that one I might use it. Weedwacker (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, it is regarded as that, but that doesn't make factually true that it is a toxic morass. There is a big difference in how we have to write this article in that light, and failure to make that distinction harms our neutrality. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

because "factually" doxing and terrorist threats and vile vile harassment of women is "puppies and kitties and ice cream cones" and not "toxic"? "factually" no. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

We are not allowed to take that position at all as a neutral source. Morally, yes, harassment is toxic, but we're a neutral source, and cannot take a highly subjective term and use is as fact. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"We" are not "taking a position" other than to report what the reliable sources have determined - that the toxic harassment has completely tainted everything that GG has done or wishes to do in the future. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Which is an opinion that we definitely will include, but report as an opinion. We cannot take the position that that is the "right" opinion. Morally, I'm in full agreement but for writing neutrally we can't make that presumption. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:ASSERT there are no other credible alternate opinions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a needless argument. A movement is a group that operates together towards a goal or goals. Whether sources say they are fighting for ethics or for harassment they tend to attribute the actions to a group or member(s) of a group. It has also been described as a culture war... well there are sides in a culture war so obviously some people must be fighting over culture for it to be a culture war. It's not even like this is an anti/pro argument, as RS's from each side of the "ethics or harassment" conversation sometimes identify a group or movement. This is a silly fight over semantics. There's definitely a group, no matter how disorganized and leaderless, and they have goals, no matter how conflicted sources are over what they are. That's a movement. Weedwacker (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

even by your assertion GG is not a movement. There is no GG goal or goals - just random chaos on the interwebs and SWATTING with new targets every week. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly your opinion. Ries42 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Its what is stated in the source that you linked mere hours ago :Over the course of the autumn, Gamergaters seemed angry about many things: the increasing number of women playing and featuring in video games; the sometimes overly cosy friendships between games developers and the journalists who covered their work; and the meaninglessness of “gamer” as an identity in an age where your grandma can play a £2.99 puzzler on her iPhone." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is no movement, then there is no controversy, and this article should not exist. If there's nothing tying these series of events together that are outlined in this article, then it is just a series of random events. Please, start up the AfD. Weedwacker (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Even without a "movement" there is most certainly controversy about terrorist threats and doxing and vile vile harassment of women conducted under tag of "GG". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:03,' 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not really a controversy to that end - it is highly criticized and no one in any reliable source is challenging those as legitimate tools (even the GG supporters that are quoted in RS are shown critical of these approaches). Given how weighted the coverage is towards criticism instead of a back-and-forth controversy (like global warming), it makes sense the movement and criticism of the movement is the focus here. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Only "some" people who claim to be GG supporters are taking that position. SOME people claiming to be GG itself are conducting the toxic harassment. You cannot pull out those people as say that only these other people are GG - that would be OR and counter to all of the sources that lump assign GG to the vile vile harassment and say "and then there are also these 'but ethics' tag alongs" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, that's missing the big picture. At the start of GG, back in August, calling this a controversy when there was a lot words being thrown back and forth and the GG side was being taken with some seriousness, it was definitely a controversy. But time's progressed, and as many sources point out, the claims of GG have generally been dismissed as impractical or unwieldy and thus what the GG side has been saying has been generally ignored in the more recent months - instead the focus has been on the damage they've done to various people, the continues use of harassment and other tools that appear to be from malicious users that may or may not be associated with GG but using the name in that manner, and the fact the VG industry has had to turn inward, ask "how did we get here" and recognizing that they are partially responsible for sexism in the industry and now trying to fight that. That's not controversy, that's outright criticism of the GG group as a whole, because no one is counter-pointing these conclusions. Add google hit checks, and yes, everything we have is about the movement - not so much the details of the movement but the reactions to it. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

So you think it should be Gamergate harassment campaigns?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No. Again, stressing this is only something to think about, is that the topic is the Gamergate movement; an article written around the movement would go something broadly like this: "Its history bore out from the Quinn accusation alongside the onset of harassment attacks. The group says they are about ethics in journalism, here are their points, here's what else they've tried to do (email campaigns), etc. The movement became a controversy, recieving highly negative reaction/strong criticism, for lacking organization and not appearing like a normal "movement"; using a simple hashtag that has allowed either the malicious elements within their group or third-parties to use the GG name to engage in continued harassment, refusing to move from that and thus casting doubt on their "ethics" campaign; and basically engaging in a culture war, wanting to keep video games for young males instead of adapting to the culture. The industry, while they have addressed some points such as disclosures, have instead recognized that their own lack of dealing with sexism within their industry laid some of the basis for why GG exists, and have started to reconsider how they will address sexism and discrimination within their ranks due to the result of GG's actions." This is only something to think about, since if it was a controversy, such as the controversy over global warming, you'd easily have two (or more) sides debating points, which really doesn't exist here, now. It is what the movement has done (directly or not) that has created a new landscape in the industry, hence why the movement is more representative of the topic, even if people express doubt at considering them a real movement. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This is why I believe the distinction between "Gamergate controversy" and "Gamergate movement" matters. In an article about the movement, we must be careful of attributing actions to the movement that may not be perpetrated by the movement. Whereas, in an article about the controversy, we're able to take a broader view of what has happened and give readers a better perspective of the timeline and scope of the story. Any incidents of harassment we mention in an article about the movement would imply that members of the movement are responsible- a facet that has been both highly controversial and subject to debate within our sources. As it stands now, we're able to mention that critics of gamergate have received harassment, and allow the reader to draw their own conclusion as to whether gamergate is responsible for that harassment or not, either explicitly or implicitly. We're also able to mention other aspects at the edges of this controversy, which an article about the "movement" would be forced to ignore. At the end of the day, the goal is to make a better encyclopedia and to create a comprehensive article that will best inform its readers as to what a given topic is truly about. As gamergate has been widely regarded as a "culture war" in our sources, it seems to make sense that we focus on all aspects of that culture war, rather than just those who identify as members of a rather nebulous movement. The movement is but a part of his controversy, not the entire thing. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

As per Woodroar, this is a tempest over a teacup. The word "movement" doesn't seem to be unduly out of place - we have to use some word to describe the loosely-organized mess that is Gamergate, and I don't think "movement" makes any suggestion of significant cohesion. We describe the loose organization and the challenges this poses to presenting a coherent ideology and message. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is the dichotomy of identities. The article focus is on sexism and misogyny but that attribute isn't used to characterize individuals. We have named victims with nebulous assailants. On the other hand, named GG supporters are not misogynist or harassers (and not characterized as such). That makes it hard to conflate a mass of nameless trolls with a specific set of living people. Association through the term "movement" is problematic at best and a BLP issue at worse. We can't tie so-called leaders to the mob without running afoul of BLP policy. --DHeyward (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

there are no "leaders" - multiple sources verify that. there are some "cheerleaders" and people who some GG have lionized because they have stated "nasty feminists shouldnt intrude into boys video games", but that is not relevant point over whether or not GG is considered a "movement" by the reliable sources that have analyzed it from that perspective. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You can't have the proverbial cake and eat it too, though; if Gamergate is about "sexism and misogyny", then those "named GG supporters" are tacitly connected to that for no other reason then their vocalized support of Gamergate. Guilt by association may be unfair, but that's life. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

That's why movement doesn't work. If you want to include named people as leaders, then "misogyny and sexism" has to go without a source. if you want "sexist and misogynous", then naming people without has to go. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Guilt by association made in a Wikipedia article is a BLP violation. --DHeyward (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The simple description of someone as a Gamergater, or a Gamergater supporter, lumps them in with all that Gamergate is notorious for. That's not a BLP violation, and it happens every day. Tarc (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Or specifically, we do have sources that criticize anyone that claims to be a GG supporter and staying with the GG hashtag as implicitly supporting the harassment campaign; that's the whole issue that the sources give - if the GGers want to stay unorganized and simply let a hashtag be their identifying call, they better be ready to be accountable for what happens under that GG hashtag. There are some that are fighting that, and we should be careful to not imply that every GG supporter or person in the movement is responsible for harassment, but there is something to be said about the opinion on accountability that is lacking with GG as per sources. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP doesn't apply to groups except in very specific cases, and this isn't one of those cases. Woodroar (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

That's the Kafka version. Claiming people are part of or leading a group that we define as misogynous and sexist is a BLP violation. Many anti-GG people use the hashtag as well so that's a dubious claim. Sorry but the people that are named supporters disavow misogyny and harassment and say that's not what it is about. That there are nameless people that create misogyny and harassment through use of a hashtag despite the call to stop means that association between the two is a BLP issue. --DHeyward (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding an alternative reading, or at least some warning to the reader

I'm assuming that we all understand the numerous issues of the article. I understand fully that Wikipedia has standards for the sources to be used in an article. But this article is not written in good faith. It is extremely biased because the sources it has decided to depend on are also biased. This isn't an argument. It's pretty obvious that most of the sources are either:

-Relying on yellow journalism to fabricate a story that will receive views

-Outright lying as a result of their condemnation of gaming as a whole

-Are not practicing good journalism by refusing to research a topic thoroughly

These sources are NOT following their standards for news and they should not be used in Wikipedia for this article. Please consider this. The general public will look here first. They will not choose to investigate further. They will not care. They will only see gaming as some utterly hateful community. Wikipedia has a massive influence on how the world thinks and putting this article up as a summary of this issue is completely against what Wikipedia stands for. This article is not published in good faith and that is utterly obvious.

PUT A WARNING at the top of the article that explicitly warns about the lack of neutrality, honesty, or reliability of the article/sources.

The reason I put the Know Your Memes article as the alternative is because they use many good sources and truthfully explain what is going on. Please consider this change. It's a small one but it will change everything and make it a respectable article. Singdavion (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

As it happens I don't agree that our sources are all biased and dishonest on this particular issue, but supposing I did, I don't think there's anything we could do about that. We rely on at least some reliable sources dissenting, and we note that dissent to the extent of its prominence.

This isn't an abstract issue to me, or to most of us. There can't be many people who don't, occasionally or even quite frequently, think the press and broadcasting institutions become something of an echo chamber and present a biased view almost in unison. We live with that. It's not up to Wikipedia to right wrongs.--TS 17:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

We can't right wrongs, but at the same time, when we know something is factually true and is being misrepresented/misreported by the mainstream sources, we can opt to not include the misrepresentation, though knowing we also cannot put in the factual correction if that fact is not represented in sources either; in such a case it is better to remain mum on the topic since the "truth" is not there; WP:V while a requirement for sourcing, does not mean that every piece of material that meets WP:V needs to be included particularly in light of the other major content policies. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being so ignorant but what does "mum" mean? If this article actually did state why all these sources are not worthy of trust than I wouldn't have any real problem with it but the thing is, the way I read it, it it's fairly obvious that it's explicitly following the biases of the sources. Any notes on what the opposition has done are fairly unsatisfactory. There is a point where the rules are no longer enough and this is that point. You can't honestly watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAyncf3DBUQ garbage and post it up as fact without feeling utter regret. You are lying directly to the face of anyone who read this article, and your excuse is that this is what the reliable sources say. Singdavion (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"Mum" is slang for staying silent on. The problem is that we have no sources that we can use to put doubt into the sources that we are using, and even then, I doubt we'd even have anyone say they are "wrong". I'm sympathetic that the press overall has had difficulty (whether due to the fact GG remains unorganized, or that the have opted to do it this way) giving a normally equivalent coverage of the GG supporters as they have to those harassed, but that's what we're stuck with, we cannot create coverage where there is none, and from a standpoint of what the larger world sees, GG is seen in a negative light. The problem is that there's very little factually wrong in what the press has said. Their opinions they've come to, you may disagree with, but it is also the predominate opinion and there's very little to support the GG side at this point. Until more sources on the GG side from reliable sources come along to counter that, we're stuck with this approach. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And is there no chance that we can use certain youtubers with a strong following as a sources? There are people which the community has chosen to be their representatives and their input on the subject, if you ask me, can be considered a primary source. I am talking about people like Phil Mason, John Bain, Karen Straughan, Stephen Williams, and numerous others. What rule says that we can not use their input and arguments on the subject as reliable sources. I think these people would be very good primary sources and they would bring a lot more balance to this article.

Hiding WP:BLPPRIMARY content. Woodroar (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just to provide link to these sources: Stephen Williams: https://www.youtube.com/user/boogie2988 Phil Mason: https://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t Karen Straughan: https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat John Bain: https://www.youtube.com/user/TotalHalibut

Singdavion (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY, it would seem to me, would not support the use of those sources, unless it's for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts." SinglePurposePartier (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

They are self-published sources which is strict. Also, to be clear "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" in this context would mean "this person in this video said this", not using them as a source for any assertions. — Strongjam (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Strongjam, yes. I'm still new and working on my policy knowledge. I appreciate the clarification! Either way, these don't seem to fit that criteria. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:FORUM about Gamergate, not about improving article — Strongjam (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are alternative sources that have given voice to it including Milo's pieces (and his latest doxxing and threats by anti-GG forces led by (Redacted)). Here's an adland op/ed. Not to mention many changes to game review journals which pretty much outlines what was wrong with (Redacted)'s lack of disclosure. Here's the latest that explains the problem and why it was wrong. --DHeyward (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Er, no. There was no "lack of disclosure" with (Redacted). He did not write about any of (Redacted)'s games — or indeed, write anything about (Redacted) — after beginning the relationship with her. Suggesting that the situations are analogous or that there is any substance to the accusations against (Redacted) and (Redacted) is unsupported nonsense. Additionally, I've redacted the Breitbart link you supplied — it's essentially Milo making an extended personal attack on a living person, something which we aren't going to republish or even consider. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Yes, there was a lack of disclosure and it was to his bosses and the internal processes and discussion concerning coverage. That's the whole point of this. (Redacted)'s editor had to investigate. That's a problem. In my industry, it would have a terminable offense and its widely regarded as the minimal level of disclosure. His boss should have been able to immediately say he was aware of the relationship and made conscious decisions to keep (Redacted) out of any discussions regarding coverage. It's not just journalism ethics 101, it's usually policy in any reputable company where even the perception of COI is a big deal. And Milo filed a police report for the harassment by (Redacted) for doxxing and harassing him. --DHeyward (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC) If you insert a patently unreliable source making personal attacks on a living person again, I'll need to file a request for sanctions. What it would have been "in your industry" is of no consequence here, as Wikipedia articles are not based on personal anecdotes but rather what reliable sources say. The fact of the matter is that, as per reliable sources, (Redacted) refrained from writing about (Redacted) after beginning the relationship, self-evidently demonstrating that there was no conflict of interest or ethical violation. Your personal opinion to the contrary is irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC) IfThis explains the problem and why it was wrong. It is (Redacted)'s industry. "Not writing about it" is not enough and is an alternate reading of ethics that journalists are held to. Self-restrain ia not the standard in any journalistically credible venue, disclosure is. That's completely opposite to the narrative and all the gaming journalistic magazines are plaing catchup to reach minimum standards. PC Gamer is the latest. --DHeyward (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC) That's entirely backwards as applied to the case in question. As the Society of Professional Journalists notes, journalists should avoid conflicts of interest and disclosure should only be made in the case of unavoidable conflicts. As (Redacted) did not write anything about (Redacted) after becoming involved in a personal relationship with her, there were no unavoidable conflicts which would require such disclosure. Absent such a need for disclosure, there is not now and never has been any ethical requirement that journalists generally make their personal lives and relationships public. That is not the meaning of "disclosure." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC) I don't entirely understand what this has to do with improving the article. This seems to be more of what's plaguing this talk page: debate about the core issues of gamergate, rather than how they're presented in the reliable secondary sources. It's no editor's job to litigate the veracity of gamergate's claims. It's the job of the reliable sources to do that, which they have done. I don't see how this PC Gamer ethics page is relevant to our article, or could help a reader better understand the story of the gamergate controversy. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

An alternate reading is this explains the problem, why it was wrong and is a direct fallout from gamergate. It's completel absent in our version. The claim that "no ethics were violated" counters all the changes to policies "Not writing about it" is not enough and is an alternate reading of ethics that journalists are held to. Self-restrain ia not the standard in any journalistically credible venue, disclosure is. That's completely opposite to the narrative and all the gaming journalistic magazines are playing catchup to reach minimum standards. PC Gamer is the latest and illustrates that even if the journalist did not write about it, disclosure through the editorial chain and then to the reader is the ethical standard. The lack of ethical standards in gaming is being corrected directly as a result of journalsits that made it obvious that basic journalistic standards didn't exist to the level of other professional journalism outlets. PC Magazines editor did not write a single thing about his girlfriends company or productsafter they started dating but post-gamergate has shown that is not the standard and this alternate view does not exist. --DHeyward (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with our article here. We already cover disclosure changes as one of the few beneficial effects of Gamergate. Find a good, reliable source linking the PC Gamer change to Gamergate and put it into the article. --TS 03:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the link is as obvious as the conclusion about Grayson. An investigation, followed by a press release. None mention gamergate but rather the relationship between journalist and subject. --DHeyward (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Er, no, the link between the two situations is not obvious and your conclusion is entirely unsourced. More to the point, your reading of the PC Gamer article is entirely incorrect, and in that incorrect reading of the article, you miss entirely why the two situations you are attempting to compare are not analogous. The PC Gamer writer in question did, indeed, actually write articles about Ubisoft games while in a relationship with someone employed by Ubisoft, and that conflict of interest (apparent or actual) was not disclosed to readers. In the words of Tim Clark, It was subsequently decided to remove Tyler from reviewing Ubisoft games. What we ought to have done was remove him from all Ubisoft coverage... This difference is not minor or trifling, it is the entire and whole difference between an actual issue implicating journalism ethics and a complete nothingburger.

tl;dr: One journalist engaged in a relationship with someone employed by a games publisher and subsequently wrote articles about that publisher's games. The other journalist engaged in a relationship with an independent games developer and did not subsequently write articles about that developer's games. Non-comparable, non-analogous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:FRINGE for why we will not be going with your suggestion. Artw (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The neutrality of the article was challenged in the past, but a consensus of Wikipedia editors found those claims to be without substance, so no, articles do not get "warning" tags added just because a minority does not like it. The article as it presently stands reflects exactly what reliable sources say on the matter. Tarc (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not the minority. It's the majority. This article is fundamentally wrong. And it should try and leverage it's flaws by putting up a warning. Singdavion (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tarc: there is severe disagreement regarding whether or not that consensus was an accurate portrayal of the sources or whether such a consensus exists at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to explain that one, because no one has contested the closure of the RfC beyond making wholly-unsupported claims of "bias" by the closer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Singdavion, that is incorrect, as the overwhelming number of reliable sources characterize Gamergate as primarily about the misogynistic harassment of women, and dismiss the "but ethics" claim. "But ethics" is given it's due coverage in the article, just as any other minority point-of-view is in other encyclopedia topics in this project. This is the status quo, as enforced by a consensus of long-time Wikipedia editors. And just for the sake of being informative, Thargor, I disabled my ping notifications weeks ago. Tarc (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but this is utterly wrong. The rules are not satisfactory and there should be exceptions made for the situation. In failing to give a true summary of the situation, you fall prey to the exact issue it is fighting. Singdavion (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Singdavion: we do have requirements for sources for a reason. The KYM piece may be more accurate than what we have here, but we have to go along with mainstream, reliable sources for a reason, and that reason isn't to codify bad information into this article. I agree with you that this article is in poor shape, but we need to find better articles that are reliable sources to fix them. Blogs, YouTube videos, and the like aren't going to do it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

How can I tell that your take on the situation is more accurate than that from the majority of our reliable sources, Singdavion? In other words, by what communicable process have you determined that the facts as presented in our article are incorrect? --TS 19:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tony Sidaway: it's widely understood that blogs, websites, etc, can give a better picture of a situation than what the mainstream "reliable" media chooses to report in a variety of topics. That doesn't mean said sources are good for an encyclopedia, thus the challenge. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Blogs and YouTube channels are often of extremely high quality, but many are abysmal. If I followed certain YouTube channels or blogs, for instance, I'd get a really garbled version of, say, how biologists think evolution works, or what Anita Sarkeesian says in her own videos. So, again, how do I tell what is correct and what is not? We do something similar to what the Wikipedia's reliable sources themselves do. My conclusion from this process is that the vast majority of blogs on almost any topic are of incredibly poor quality. But we're veering off topic now. The Wikipedia method is to use reliable sources, which seldom involve getting information from blogs and YouTube. Thus we avoid interminable squabbles over whether evolution is disproven because there are still monkeys, or whether the September 11, 2001 atrocity was really an inside job. --TS 00:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

No exceptions are necessary; this project covers countless controversial topics...abortion, climate change, Israel-Palestine, 9.11...just fine. By covering the topic and reflecting the sources, the Wikipedia itself is not endorsing "Gamergate equals harassment" any more than having an article on Israel and the apartheid analogy endorses the validity of that analogy. It just says "these people say this, and these people say that". Where problems arise is when there's a mistaken belief that opposing points of view are equal. They aren't equal here, as sources give far more credence to the harassment side than the ethics side. Pro-GG people can't come here to fight that fight ; the beef isn't with the Wikipedia, it is with the mainstream media. If you wish to help to see that the pro-GG side is covered fairly, that's great. But trying to make it equal is a lost cause, unless one finds reliable sources out there to support it. As article are not given specific disclaimers, ever, it may be advisable to just wrap this tangent up. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

gawker as source

Temporarily on hold while questions as to BLP and user conduct issues arising are resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is a current event. [5]. Milo was doxxed, was harrased and he filed a police report. --DHeyward (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC) I don't know if I'm reading that source correctly, but I don't see where in the source that is discussed. Did you mean to share a different source? SinglePurposePartier (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Does any of this have anything to do with Gamergate at all? Parabolist (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC) I'm not sure who Shanley Kane is, or what the fact that a Gamergate figure thinks she "has a colorful past" has to do with this article. Would you mind redacting your unsourced claims about a living person? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)