Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Some/Many users in lede

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

---

So I think the problem with some/many is that they can imply sizes or percentages of, when we really just want to say that some separate group of users. Perhaps we can go with 'assorted' or 'various' instead? I've applied an update already, but if someone wants me to self-revert please ask so you don't have to use your 1RR. Ping would be helpful for faster response. — Strongjam (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Either way "some/many" implies that there are the remainder that have said its something else (arguably "a harassment campaign") in sourcing we can use, but the problem is we have absolutely no sourcing of what else those that have identified with GG say what GG is - the only reliable sources along these lines are GGers that say GG is about ethics. As such, using either "some" or "many" is a problem because we have no idea how big a proportion these people are. In considering what we know GGers have specifically said about GG that is quoted in reliable sources, which only includes those that say it is an ethics campaign, I would actually remove the "some" or "many" quantifier because we have nothing to source that otherwise. (We do state that the media generally does not believe that and that GG is something very different). --MASEM (t) 15:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

the sources do not say: gamergaters say "but ethics" - the sources say: gamergaters say "but ethics" "die bitch die" "game reviews should be objective" "keep your stinking feminazi nose out of my games" "i am going to kill you cunt" "those making harassment arent really gamergate" "i know where you live" "only people who like the game should review it" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that say "GG supporter say the purpose of their movement is to be able to harass others". There might be some that say this in places like 8chan , etc. but without a RS restating this (as they have done in stating that GG supporters say it is about ethics), we can't make that original research. The only RS-verified self-stated purpose of GG that we can state is that it is about ethics and not about harassment. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

In other news, we have no RS-verified self-stated guilty claim for the Manson Family killings by Charles Manson, so without that we can't state that he was responsible for their murder. Sorry: Couldn't resist the joke. Hope this illuminates the problem with your statement. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

However Manson was found guilty by a court of law, so as such, we can objectively write him as the person that committed that crime; that's a key major difference here. For example, at the present time, with all the allegations made against Bill Cosby that the press have likely tagged him guilty, WP remains objective and does not assume any guilt on Cosby's part (as an example). There has been zero legal cases in the GG situation, and the press is only a court of public opinion, so we must maintain the same objectivity. No self-stated GG supporter is on the record (within usable reliable sources) stating that GG is an harassment campaign or similar, so we can't report objectively otherwise. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Essentially, my point is: We don't have to (and in fact, shouldn't) only use 'self-stated' descriptors in articles. We should use them for things we say are self-stated (obviously), but that doesn't mean we can't use other, more accurate sources for what they actually are (campaign of harassment etc.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. A quick read of WP:BLPCRIME might help with the flaws in that analogy. Many prominent voices in GG have stated the movement is focused primarily on ethics, and those voices are quoted in reliable sources. None of those prominent voices have stated that GG is focused primarily on harassment -- that's all come from analysis conducted by secondary sources (typically the article's author). This is an important distinction, because in this particular case we're not trying to answer the question: What is GamerGate really about? That question has been asked and answered. Here, we are only answering the question: What does GamerGate say they are about? I have not found a single case where a journalist quotes a prominent GamerGate proponent thusly: "Only people who like the game should review it." I'd love to see a source for any of those quotes. I can (and have) provided examples where sources quote prominent voices in the GG movement -- some even have secondary analysis -- who have stated that GamerGate supporters believe their movement is about ethics in journalism. Surely we don't have to list those again? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

and many many many of the prominent GG tweets and chan posts are harassment et al. without anything other than the hashtag to signify membership ALL of the harassment are just as valid representations of what gg is/stands for/believes and more importantly DOES. And the sources that have looked at everything have concluded over and over again "those self identified that say 'gg is about ethics' are stupid and have no idea what ethics is, or blind to what is actually happening or actively trying to lie about it." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Which are claims and opinions, not facts; well-vocalized claims and should be included, no question, but must be treated as claims, until there is an authority that states otherwise (such as the result of arrests and criminal charges). --MASEM (t) 22:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No, Masem, they are definitively NOT "opinions". It is FACTUAL that "objective reviews" "reviews without social implications" are NOT "ethics". It is FACTUAL that all of harassment and death threats done under gamergate tag IS gamergate because there is no organization/membership/leadership/spokesperson/manifesto to say otherwise. It is FACTUAL that what anyone has found worthy of noting about gamergate is everything BUT the self identified gamergater who says "but ethics!" as under even the briefest study the "ethics" claims fall apart. It IS opinion that when some anon on the web says "I am gamergate and i think gamergate is about ethics".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes they are opinions, just as what the GG movement say about themselves is opinions as well. Statements of subjectivity cannot be stated as fact. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced we need any qualifier either, but I put one in there since I didn't think we'd get consensus to remove it entirely. I think when talking about what is essentially an amorphous and leaderless group it should be taking for granted that any statement given is not a blanket one. — Strongjam (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, but I don't think that's going to fix the problem. I'm indifferent to "assorted" versus "various". ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• I think the discussion got skewed quite a bit here... Does the sentence need a qualifier/quantifier? Personally ,I think none would work fine, or using the proper qualifier. But definitely not a quantifier. We don't know how many "users of the hashtag" made the statement. We can't really say it's many, some, a lot, a few or even assorted/various because it might be the same few people cited over and over again as these "media" outlets so often do. It could potentially be every user of the hashtag saying it. All we know is that it is plural.

So I think we should go without, unless we can come up with a better way to specifically identify who the users are. And it seems to be necessary to note that we cannot infer if some users of the hashtag would give a different statement because there is behavior contrary to the original statement. We gotta use what we're given. TyTyMang (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It absolutely cannot present the unqualified presentation that all of gamergate being about ethics because the sources clearly and overwhelmingly show that gamergate is about harassment and death threats and misogyny with "but ethics" being only minor portion -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

tRPOD, I dont get why you're viewing this as an either/or situation. This isnt about Gamergate actually "being about ethics" this is about whether Gamergate claim to be about ethic.Gamergate is not split into harassers and "but ethickers." Nobody says "I'm a member of Gamergate because I love carrying out harassment." Someone can claim to be a campaigner for journalistic ethics, while actually being a vicious harasser. The fact that a large proportion of Gators believe they are campaigning for journalist ethics, and for some reason believe that journalistic ethics = 'No feminism alowed' is widely mentioned in reliable sources (note how the first sentence in debate over ethics paragraph has six source). While of course gamergate is notoriously unquantiifiable, your reasoning for removing "many" seemed incorrect, which is why I reverted. As it stands I think Strongjam has solved the problem. Do you take any issue with the qualifier they have added ("Assorted")? Bosstopher (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

When you try to state "Gamergate says X" it is false. There is no "gamergate" to say X. It is just one anon who can only speak for themselves. The thousands of other anon members of gamergate sending death threats and harassment are as much speaking for what gamergate IS. To ignore them in preference for an anonymous self serving voice is to fundamentally misrepresent the facts and what the sources present. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I recognise the problem that you're bringing up but I think we've avoided it, given that the sentence in question is (loosely paraphrased) "members of Gamergate say they are X, nobody in the press is buying it." I'll ask again: are you ok with the phrasing as Strongjam has left it? Bosstopher (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This is entirely your POV, and is unsupported by the reliable sources on the matter that speak to it as a movement that does, en masse, say things and believe things even with a portion of those behind the hashtag engaging in harassment. I fail to see how this benefits any sort of consensus building on the matter. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You completely ignore the sources that speak to the fact that it is not a movement - that without membership or spokespeople or a manifesto, it is just people ranting on the internets and sending death threats and one anon's claims that "GG is X" are fully countered by the GG misogynist who is as fully representative. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't, no, we've been through this. The sources call it a movement, and your point of view as to what constitutes a movement is of no concern here. You do not need a manifesto or a leader to be a movement. I don't want to derail this further with this diversion, but continuing to say we cannot attribute claims to Gamergate because you believe (absent evidence) they can't constitute a movement is simply untrue and unsupported by sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

some sources use the term "movement" - mostly because there isnt a term for "a collection of anonymous posters on the interwebs using the same hashtag for a wide variety of sometimes vaguely related and sometimes completely unrelated purposes". there are also several sources that specifically look at it under the question "is it a movement?" and come to the very simple conclusion that "no. without leaders, membership, a manifesto, organization or spokespeople, it is not a movement in the classical definition." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The type of obfuscation that we seem to have to go through to avoid giving any possible credibility to GG is becoming extremely counter to objectivity and neutrality. There is no issue calling GG self-statement movement (we have from RSes) as long as we making it 100% clear it is their claim, and within the same article we identify numerous criticism that if it is a movement it is unlike anything called a movement before, and their unorganized, amorphous goals, and attitude/indifference to the harassment attacks begs the question of their purpose. Calling it a movement and adding those critical caveats drastically simplifies the language across the article (such as these lead issue), making it much easier to understand, would not undermine any of the obvious facts of the situation, and keeps us impartial and not pushing an agenda of trying to discredit or judge GG. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldnt need to keep reminding people that the sources that have specifically looked at it as a "movement" have said "nope, its not a movement" if you wouldnt keep pressuring to present the anon voices who have no basis to claim they represent anything are somehow representative of the actual gamergate when they say "but ethics". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You're probably right, and the sources actually do support this as a basic claim. Definitely more NPOV, as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree 100% with TyTyMang. Why include a qualifier at all? There is no reason to qulaify the statement with ""some", "many" or "all". I have made the necessary changes. Please let me know if the article reads better. Marcos12 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

We definitely can't say that. There are many different sources in the article describing what people have said their goals are; we can't attribute that statement to some vague universal group of people. It's something that some (but not all) users of the hashtag has said; that's all we can say. Others, for instance, have said that the purpose is solely to fight a culture war against progressivism, or that it is not at all about fighting against progressivism, but solely about defending videogames; or about fighting censorship or so on. The [Ars Technica|http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/new-chat-logs-show-how-4chan-users-pushed-gamergate-into-the-national-spotlight/] coverage, in describing the genesis of the movement, cites voices within Gamergate saying that its purpose was to harass Quinn or to drive her to suicide, with quotes like "i couldnt care less about vidya, i just want to see zoe receive her comeuppance" or "Well I don't have a legitimate reason. I just want to see her die horribly." These sorts of things have received as much (if not more) coverage in terms of Gamergate's goals. Obviously people disagree over things like who represents Gamergate, who gets to speak for it or define what it is. Now, of course they note that other people claiming to be part of Gamergate have disagreed with those quotes, so clearly those don't define everyone, either; but as an encyclopedia, our job is to follow reliable sources, which means that when a reputable source like Ars Technica describes those quotes as being representative of what (some of) the people behind Gamergate want, we have to respect and report that. Therefore, we can't just take quotes from a few people and say "this is definitely what Gamergate is and what it stands for." --Aquillion (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Break: Primary

Primary is also inappropriate per Aquillion and the actual statistical studies from Newsweek and the Swedish source. The anons claiming "gamergate is 'but ethics'" have no validity to represent the "movement" only themselves. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The sources in the article appear to disagree. The statement is about what the movement claims, independent of what certain studies decide to claim. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It is only "opinion" that those stating that represent "the movement" as there is no official spokespeople or manifesto or organization or leader. The factual statistical representations show that claim is wrong and not primary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not our responsibility to decided if the sources are referring to people who don't represent "the movement" or not. In fact, it is our responsibility to not make this inference per WP:OR. What the group may or may not actually do has no impact on what they say.

Per Aquillion's statement, we're not talking about "Gamergaters" we're talking about "users of the hashtag". If we need to add another line to represent other views of "the movement" then we can, and should do that as well. TyTyMang (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

except that you cannot separate "users of the hashtag" from "the movement". by design there is no formal organization, no leaders, no spokespeople, no manifesto hence no way to differentiate.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, you've made it clear to me that the information has been qualified all along. Who are these people? ... "Users of the hashtag." The statement itself doesn't say what Gamergaters say about it. The statement just says what "users of the hashtag" have stated what Gamergate is about.

To have an NPOV and to prevent OR in the article, we must refrain from making our own conclusions about the topic. To say they are not separable requires us to jump to conclusions that are not logically sound. For instance people outside of Gamergate can and have used the hashtag. And people partial to Gamergate do not all use twitter, much less the hashtag. While these points may not be sourced information, what is sourced is the specification of those making the statement as users of the hashtag. If you want, we can rewrite it as "Users of #GamerGate" as that has been used in at least one source. And actually, that source is probably the most accurate and neutral of all of the sources I've gone through so far. And is also not an involved source. (there really are way too many source on this article) TyTyMang (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"Users of the hashtag" have sent death threats and organized horrific harassment campaigns - the items that are the feature of every point of coverage and the reason there is any article about #gamergate. to ignore that and to blanket present "users of the hashtag" as but ethics is the gross NPOV violation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The key point, as I noticed above, is that we have many people who have used and pushed the hashtag stating different goals (and extensive commentary saying that journalists have had trouble determining their goals.) Therefore, we cannot word this sentence in a way that implies that it is a clear universal goal shared by everyone who has ever used the hashtag; that is not supported by our sources. "One of their goals" doesn't work, for similar reasons. --Aquillion (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I still think Among the #Gamergate postings are those that claim the Gamergate goal is accomplishes what we need to do. It sets up the claim without attributing any "proportion" while signifying that there are other claims and postings of different focus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually this turns "users of the hashtag claim" into "postings claim" and sets this up as a proportion of all postings instead of a proportion of all claims. You say "while signifying that there are other claims". What are these other claims? If we have that sourced information then we wouldn't have to have this discussion in the first place because it would be necessary to proportion out the claims.TyTyMang (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

the "other postings" are of course the harassment campaign for which the hashtag is notable, (and the coordination of slanting the Wikipedia article, the general rantings about LW1-3, the internecine backbiting etc.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

May I suggest something that I think we may be able to agree on? Why not something like: "One of the primary goals stated by the Gamergate *movement* (emphasis mine) is to improve the ethical standards..." This is what RS represent and more importantly we are making a clear distinction between proponents of the movement and users of the hashtag. After all, multiple RS reference the movement, but we have had trouble determining how to incorporate said reference. Marcos12 (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We already reference Gamergate using the term 'movement' in many places (eg. in the paragraph above, where it says that that led to an "anonymous and amorphous movement"), but the key point is that the sources don't agree on what the movement is beyond the basic outline of its history -- they disagree on what it wants, who it's composed of, what it stands for, and so on. Many of them refer to it as eg. a gamer movement, an anti-feminist movement, a reactionary movement, a harassment movement and countless other terms; because of this wide range of opinions on what it is and how it defines itself, we cannot lead with a statement implying that there is one clear agreement on what Gamergate is and what it stands for. There is some room for discussion, of course, but the final version of this particular sentence must avoid using the term 'movement' (because we cannot define what sort it is or who qualifies as a member in any concrete terms), and must have 'some' or 'many' or some other qualifier. We cannot say in article text that Gamergate (as a movement or a hashtag) universally shares the goal of improving ethical standards in videogame reviews, because there is significant coverage in reliable sources saying otherwise. We can say that some people have said that that is their goal, but we cannot report their statements as fact or generalize them to the entire hashtag or movement -- members who were quoted in reliable sources as saying eg. "i couldnt care less about vidya, i just want to see zoe receive her comeuppance" must be represented as well. Because of this lack of agreement on what the movement is, who represents it, and so on, the best we can do is make statements about what some people using the hashtag have said, since that is clearly-definable; that's why the sentence was so carefully-worded (to avoid including or excluding definitions of who Gamergate is while representing what some people using the hashtag have claimed, without passing judgment on that claim one way or the other.) Your proposed changes, though, are not backed up by most reliable sources -- you're basically inserting your own opinion on what Gamergate really is about by excluding everyone you feel is not a "real" Gamergater, a true member of the movement, and so on. --Aquillion (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Marcos12: Please revert your change. You can't say "I think we may be able to agree on?" and make a change that reverts two different edits where people don't agree with you. That's not consensus building. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Current state of the paragraph isn't acceptable to me. I much prefer Aquillion's version. — Strongjam (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"Primary" was edited out with this chain of edits diff and the "one" edit was changed here ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the this diff is preferable to the other options on the table currently as a compromise, although none of them are necessarily great. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I prefer going to the version just before his last edit, and we can work from there. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Marcos12, ForbiddenRocky, Thargor Orlando, Aquillion, and TheRedPenOfDoom: Manual reverted to revision just before. I pretty much like the sentence as-is, just with replacing "some" with another word such as "various" that conveys the meaning of "some" but without implying the size or percentage of. — Strongjam (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ehh, the limitation to the hashtag implies something that isn't supported, IMO. I could live with what's there without the hashtag mention in the short term. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please help me here? I don't understand why ANY qualifier is needed. Just because the sentence lacks a qualifier like "some" or "various", does not imply that the goal in question is universal. A couple weeks ago there was an article in the Chicago Tribune with a headline along the lines of "Chicagoans Tired of Cold". It didn't say "Some Chicagoans Tired of Cold". Now, obviously not every Chicagoan is tired of the cold weather. There are many in the city who probably love frigid temps. As I said before, it appears some are having a problem making a distinction between Gamergate (the movement) and #Gamergate (the hashtag). The sources make this distinction, and the ""majority"" of the RS also make it clear that improving ethical standards is one of the primary goals of the movement. When we add an unnecessary qualifier it doesn't accurately reflect what the sources are reporting. Adding a word like "some" or "a number" actually makes the article less accurate. Does anyone object to the following - it does not imply a universal behavior by users of the hashtag and accurately reports what RS reflect: 'One of the primary goals of those using the #Gamergate hashtag is to improve the....Marcos12 (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Very well said. I would still omit "One of" from that line though, based on the reasoning you just presented. TyTyMang (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@TyTyMang, Masem, Thargor Orlando, Aquillion, and TheRedPenOfDoom: Changing to version above. Marcos12 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

What are your sources for "primary"? — Strongjam (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Marcos12: This is not how you build consensus. Suggest you self-revert and allow time for discussion. — Strongjam (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Not my intention to break any rules, the sentence was changed previously without consensus - I was simply following suit. I wasn't aware that a consensus was needed for each change. In any event, I would hope my explanation above makes some sense. If we add a qualifier to this sentence, then we need to do the same all over the article, adding "some" or "a number" before every noun describing a group of people. As I mentioned in my Chicago Tribune example, if an RS says "Gamergate supporters are in favor of ethical reporting" it doesn't imply that 'every single user of the Gamergate hashtag feels this way. Marcos12 (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

per the sources quite clearly the primary goal of gg postings is harassment and death threats. See the two actual studies of the postings in Newsweek and the Swedish source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The current version is not that different then whats been in the article for a long time. My biggest issue is not the removal of 'some' but adding "primary". — Strongjam (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The current version needs improvement. The sources in the article clearly state that the primary goal of GG, is neither harassment nor death threats. The sentence I've constructed is about what the movement claims, and what users of the hashtag are claiming per RS. Two studies do not somehow override literally dozens of sources. Marcos12 (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Which sources specifically? — Strongjam (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam, TyTyMang, Masem, Thargor Orlando, Aquillion, and TheRedPenOfDoom: Starting with the second source listed at the bottom of the article

(Christian Science Monitor): "Many of her critics took his claims as evidence of corruption in gaming journalism. So they coalesced around the #gamergate hashtag on social media, claiming they were out to expose a gaming conspiracy".

Next source, The Guardian: "proponents of this movement say their key target is games journalism. "

Next source, The Daily Dot: "Gamergate denizens’ concerns boil down to two basic ideas. The first is simple: Journalists are too cozy with developers and are failing to provide unbiased coverage of video game news."

Two sources after that, The New York TImes "a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage.

I can literally go on and on. This is extremely well sourced. I understand this is a contentious article, but it is not at all contentious to say that one of the primary goals of those using the gamergate hashtag is ethical coverage in gaming journalism. Can we please agree to change the sentence? This is what the RS represent. Marcos12 (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

None of that supports the addition of "primary" — Strongjam (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

How do they not support the addition of "primary"? Please explain. Marcos12 (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

They support the statement that proponents say it's goal, but I don't see support for primary goal. — Strongjam (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I am suggesting "ONE of the primary goals". If you prefer, I could use the wording that The Guardian employed and say "one of the key goals" Marcos12 (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Using The Guardian wording would also mean dropping ethics. It just says they're targeting games journalism. — Strongjam (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian sentence continues..."Gamergate complains about cronyism between certain writers and developers and has taken exception to the progressive sociopolitical leanings of news sources such as Polygon and Rock, Paper, Shotgun" Hence, the ethics angle. My suggestion is something along the lines of "One of the key goals stated by the Gamergate movement is to improve the ethical standards of gaming journalism..." Again, this is accurate and well-supported up by extensive RS, while at the same time it's neither controversial nor inflammatory. Marcos12 (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Drop key and change "the Gamergate movement" to "Gamergate supporters" and I think we might have something. — Strongjam (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I changed it. Let me know how it reads. While didn't use the word "key", I wanted to incorporate something that reflects what is reported by the RS, namely that improving ehtical standards is a central tenet of GG. Marcos12 (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey! I'm dropping 'central' from 'One of the central goals...' I'm not sure how we're going to designate central re: our reliable sources and many of the self stated otherwise motives for supporting gamergate, as well as it being a qualifier of dubious quality- (how would you define a central vs an offcentre goal?) Perhaps there's another way to indicate that the goal was seen as more important than others, but even then it wouldn't reflect what we're citing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Point taken regarding the word "central". I used "main" instead (main as opposed to peripheral). Daily Dot uses the word "key", while Guardian uses the word "central". I think "main" succinctly conveys what the RS say. If you'd like me to revert, please let me know. Marcos12 (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth and TheRedPenOfDoom: Just a quick note (and forgive me, as I am not sure this is the appropriate place for this), but directly above is a fairly lengthy and quite civil discussion regarding this section of the article. I realize everyone has their opinion, but I am showing enough respect to discuss changes in the talk section (and making sure there is at least some consensus) before I make the change in the article. Both of you undid revisions that were discussed at some length. You are well within your rights to do so, but in interest of improving the article it would be helpful if there was some discussion first. I learned this lesson myself just the other day. Cheers. Marcos12 (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Main reads a lot more naturally- don't at all agree with you continuing to remove 'some', however, given that we cannot accurately gauge the opinion of all members of a leaderless movement. As Strongjam has mentioned above, this is not how you build consensus. It's best to wait for multiple people to chip in, and if something in particular is a sticking point you do not continue to edit the article to enforce your preferred change, but instead discuss it until the matter is settled.PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I am willing to self-revert if others are in agreement. However, I believe the issue of using a qualifier like "some" or "many" was already discussed at great length, the consensus being a qualifier is unnecessary. Please see above for the Chicago Tribune reference. Marcos12 (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Break: some

I don't see why we wouldn't say "some". Virtually all sources that discuss the movement describe it as as leaderless and heterogeneous. Without a party, there can be no party line. We can't assume that all Gamergate supporters believe in one thing, and we also can't let the handful of (anonymous) supporters who are quoted or summarized in reliable sources to speak for everyone. Woodroar (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I definitely am not seeing any consensus to remove "some." The sources above seem to support it; mostly, they describe it as something that some people using the hashtag have said that they are seeking. Beyond that, I've cited sources that describe other people within it who have specifically said that this is not their goal, so it would definitely be misrepresenting the sources to imply that this is a goal shared by everyone who uses the hashtag, supports gamergate, considers themselves part of the movement and so on. There's some room for discussion on other things, but it's pretty clear that including 'some' is the only reasonable way we can accurately represent the wide variety of sources on the issue. --Aquillion (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I see the examples Marcos mentioned above as illustrating that some users of the hashtag have said that their goals are these things; but since we also have sources where other people say other things, we cannot omit the qualifier. I also feel it's important to focus on the hashtag (which we can define comparatively concretely); 'supporters' is more vague and has caused people to ask constant questions about what it's referring to. To me, the original version is definitely superior to all proposed revisions, but we should discuss changes one at a time -- what are the objections to using the term 'users of the hashtag', say? I feel that it's much more specific, while 'Gamergate supporters' is (in this particular context) unnecessarily vague. One of the biggest problems all coverage has had is in defining exactly what it is, who it involves, and so on, so in the lead, at least, we should try to be as specific as possible in terms of who we are talking about; and 'people using the #Gamergate hashtag' is a group that can be concretely defined. --Aquillion (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Aquillion: If you have them already, please link the sources that have Gamergaters claiming other goals. There really are too many sources for us all to go searching for specific wording.

@Woodroar: Regardless of whether or not this a leaderless/partyless group makes no difference. The sources say "(however they define gamergate) says they are about ethics in gaming journalism" By making implications into the validity of the claim based on how "Without a party, there can be no party line" you are doing research (1. the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.) And we are not allowed to include original research in WP articles.

Unless we can source anything else Gamergate says its goals are, then, as far as we know, it is the only goal they claim. To say "some" or "many" implies that they claim other goals, and we should not be making unsourced implications. TyTyMang (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Having no organization makes a great deal of difference, because without it there can be no unified goal. I fully believe that some Gamergate supporters believe that ethics is a goal, or perhaps the primary goal. But reliable sources say over and over again that Gamergate is amorphous, and because of that we can't ascribe a single goal to an anonymous body of people. And beyond that, it's not original research when multiple sources state that the claimed goal is itself a cover for other goals or activities. Woodroar (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Define what you mean by 'Gamergate'? That's the entire issue here. There's no singular Gamergate organization, no one group that defines what they stand for. Therefore, we can only rely on coverage of what people affiliated with it (users of the hashtag, people from its channels, and so on) have said. And going by that, as I said above, the Ars Technica article quotes people it identifies as being from within it saying things like "i couldnt care less about vidya, i just want to see zoe receive her comeuppance" or "Well I don't have a legitimate reason. I just want to see her die horribly." Likewise, Jesse Singal's excellent coverage here says that he found some similar things when he went to talk to self-described members of the movement. (The current lead actually touches on this, but he also notes that not everyone in the movement agrees -- or at least is willing to admit -- that their goal is to fight feminism and progressivism, while others indicate that that is their sole goal.) The CJR says similar things, explicitly describing the people who call for ethical concern in the terms we do here (as just one voice among many, pursuing different goals.) You can't say "well, but they're the enemy, we need to know what the Real True Gamergate says", because our only valid source for what Gamergate is and what it says is journalists like him -- the angry people telling Singal that it is about ethics have a voice, but so do the people saying that it is a cultural crusade against feminism or liberalism or progressivism, or a crusade to see Zoe get her commuppance, or the like. Those goals are all part of how Gamergate defines itself, not just how it is defined by some nebulous enemy; when many reputable journalists went to the most reliable primary sources they could identify to answer the question of "what is Gamergate and what does it want, in its own terms?", those are some of the answers they came back with. We cannot dismiss or diminish their findings simply because it doesn't agree with what you, personally, feel is the Real True Gamergate or what you, personally, feel the valid Gamergate-supporters say. (It might help to look at it like this, too: I suspect you would say that the people who are saying things like that are not true members of Gamergate, just trolls. But the reason you're saying that is because you already have a preconceived notion of what Gamergate is and, therefore, you see people who are 'disrupting' that as just trolls rather than Real True Gamergaters. From an outside perspective, though, those people are just as much a part of Gamergate as the people calling for ethics, and we therefore can't ignore them. --Aquillion (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The entire Gamergate controversy article is dedicated to what you're argument is about, how the sources have defined Gamergate. That is not the issue here. What we're discussing here is how "proclaimed supporters", "proponets of the movement", "users of the hashtag", etc say what it is about.

• I seem to be overlooking those quotes in the Ars Technica article. An article based on the claim that the Gamergate hashtag was created by 4chan, but corrects itself with an update, stating it was actually first introduced by Adam Baldwin. I'd say that at least puts the reliability of the article into question. Regardless, I don't see how these personal statements from individuals change anything. Those don't seem to be statements as to the nature of Gamergate. All I see is implications about the real nature of gamergate, which is what the rest of the article is for.
• Jesse Singal's "excellent coverage" links to the blog of the anti-feminist, who's introductory paragraph titled "What is GamerGate “really” about?" states "Collusion and corruption in gaming journalism is the theme here". Funny how he overlooked that small excerpt at the very beginning of the blog.
• The CJR has nothing stating what hashtag users, et al, claim it to be about. It only has quotes of what other publications claim it is about. You should check out WP:RSBREAKING's link to The Breaking News Consumer Handbook. "3. Don't trust stories that cite another news outlet as the source of the information."

This discussion is about how proponents of Gamergate, or however you want to describe it, claim Gamergate to be about. And I still have yet to see other claims. TyTyMang (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

as per Segal and Ars Technica, supporters clearly state they are about harassing Quinn or driving feminist out of gaming or a gajillion other things. The problem with a "movement" with no membership, leaders , spokespeople or manifesto and only a hashtag is that it is not a "movement" that has defined goals or objectives, its merely what is hashed. and with gamergate what is hash ranges from harassment and death threats to antifeminism bizarre claims that only people who like a game should review it to inquests into people's sex lives to just about anything but the actual real life ethical violations of AAA games using games journalism as advertising platforms or buying reviews from bloggers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The Singal and Ars Technica sources clearly cite people who they identify as members of Gamergate, describing their goals as things tangental to or unrelated to videogames (and in some cases, explicitly stating that they have no interest in videogames.) The Singal article also explicitly states that not all Gamergate supporters agree on the political goals, but that some say that those goals are their purpose. (The ref in First Things and the quote by Baldwin also indicate that attacking and punishing liberals, feminists, progressives and so on are the purpose of Gamergate, at least from the perspective of those people.) All of the sources that have surveyed Gamergate proponents to see what their goals are have come to the conclusion that the movement has no clearly-defined goals and that the ones that some people using the hashtag have stated are not shared by all members. Therefore, we cannot say that the goals you are describing are shared by all members. --Aquillion (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

appeal to be less judgmental

This entire situation is a result of being far too judgmental towards GG (we can't be as WP editors) and following the sources to their fault. Common sense and non-obfuscated, clear writing needs to take priority here rather than being a perfect mirror of the sources. Ignoring what the sources say for the moment and simply being aware as an Internet user, we know that the people that would identify themselves readily as part of the GG movement are clearly stating that they want how video game journalism is done changed and calling out ethical issues with that. We cannot verify if that is a front or not and engaged in the harassment actions (that remains a clear possibility), and we know that there are people that use the term GG in association with the harassment. We know that some of the press generally considers anyone using the GG hashtag to part of the movement, and since that encompasses the people that are co-opting it for the purposes of harassment, they consider the movement to be engaged in harassment as well. And other press sources, recognizing that there is a core movement interested in video game journalism ethics, are calling out that movement for allowing it to be co-opted by those engaging in harassing and either not doing enough, taking an indifferent attitude, or refusing to organize and move away from the GG name, for indirectly creating the environment of harassment to exist and continue.

Now, this is all information that sources say - none of this . The sources don't say this consistently, and because of there being so few facts to actually build on (both in actually knowing what GG is about ,sources or not; or what actual reliable sources), this is getting in the way of making a simple-to-understand article, particularly when there is judgement about GG going on and refusal to give anything they say about themselves (self-stated claims) any credibility.

We need to drop this judgmental approach and write plainly. We can write about their being a core movement that have a self-stated goal to challenge the current nature of video game journalism, and then note that being unorganized, leaderless, and just based off a hashtag is either not convincing to others and believed to be a front, or has allowed the movement to be coopted by trolls. We can write that some in the press see the movement being anyone that uses that hashtag, and thus see harassment and attempts to silence others as the primary/most visible goals. That's all possible without violating any WP sourcing policy, once we recognize that all we are doing is presenting claims made by the GG side and the press side in what the nature of GG is, and only adopting language (such as calling it a self-stated movement) in the interest of readability and simplification. We are doing a disservice to readers by trying to tiptoe around any statements that might seem to be validating the GG standpoint even when these are citable by a subset of the RSes we have. We're not factually stating they are a movement this way, for example, only that that is what they call themselves and we have the press's counterclaims to this. That's perfectly fine and the better way to present this for all involved. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

We follow the sources. The "core movement" as described by the sources, especially those that are entirely "factual" - the Newsweek and Swedish analysis of the postings, is harassment.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

And this is all stuff found in the sources. But because it's not consistently reported the same across sources, there's general refusal to use anything that's not sited equally in sources, and to take the more negative view of GG. And that's not what NPOV says. When that occurs, that's when we state things as claims to reflect the fact that the statements said are conflicting. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what policies you are reading, but the policies I am reading WP:OR /WP:V / WP:NPOV / state that we follow the sources, that we follow the most reliable sources, and that we give the most weight to the most widely held views. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." and "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." We have conflicting statements from the highest reliable sources (I'm not talking about trying to compare the NYTimes with Kain of Forbes, but NYTimes vs WaPost vs Boston Globe type levels), and as such need to write with that awareness. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

As per CJR it is seriously contested what gamergate might actually be. to proclaim it as a "movement" and to anoint certain claims as being completely representative would be absolute violation of any reading of NPOV. There is however no serious contestation that gg is heavily linked and entirely notable for the harassment and death threats emanating from it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Stating that GG claims they are a movement in absolutely no way violates NPOV, as long as we also include the claims that they are not a movement later. In fact, omitting that fact is a violation of NPOV, because that removes impartiality from the article. And remember, there are RSes that state that GG is self-claimed to be a movement. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

only some claim that they are a "movement" and what those some claim the "movement" is supposedly about also varies from soup to nuts. You cannot discard the "i'm gamergate and we are going to drive women from gaming by harassment and death threats" from the "im gamergate and we are about discussing why only people who like a video game should review it." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

There are no usable sources that support the self-stating claim of "i'm gamergate and we are going to drive women from gaming by harassment and death threats" (this does not mean there might be some in that community that state that is their goal, and I certainly would not be surprised if there are 8chan posts that can be read this way, just that no one that that has ID'd themselves as the movement says that is their goal within the body of reliable sources that we have to work from). That there is a perception that regardless of what self-stated claims GG says that they are really engaged in harassment, that's clearly sourced. But it is absolutely zero violation of any policy particularly NPOV to state that when people have self-identified themselves directly as part of the movement they state the movement is one about journalism ethics. That is a completely verifyable, neutral statement of a claim. We are not factually stating they are a movement, or that they are about ethics, but only the fact that this is what those that state they are part of the movement state what the movement is about, and those are claims that readibly sourcable in highly RS. They are also claims that have counterpoints, so we simply leave them as claims per the cited sections of NPOV above. To treat those statements any other way is apply judgement that we cannot do. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

THere is also no valid source that says the "i am gamergate and we are about ethics in journalism" is representative of anything other than one of many things that gg claim and actually are about. to grant that one view prominence when there is no official backing is improper . (and we do have multiple reliable sources of the "i couldnt care less about vidya, i just want to see zoe receive her comeuppance" " variety) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes there are. Just recently Boston Globe. Note that this points out both the self-stated claim, and the counterclaim of the press. Again, for us to repeat what a reliable, third-party source to "the movement/the hashtag" of what the purpose of GG is self-claimed to be by a person that claims to be a GG supporter is fully in line with V, NOR, and NPOV, as long as we are very clear it is a self-stated claim, and that we include what we already do, the skepticism and accusations the press has made about that claim. Also, there are no reliable sources that say, as a self-stated claim of a GG supporter "i couldnt care less about vidya, i just want to see zoe receive her comeuppance"; there are GG posts that exist to this point, yes, but we can't use forum posts as a reliable source. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

So in your view, the one story by the boston globe about Wu's appearance at a con despite death threats from gamergate is what we should use instead of the Columbia Journalism Review's analysis of the coverage of what gamergate is? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

or if you are so keen on Boston Globe as the authority, then we can go with their analysis that Originally presented as a forum for discussions of journalistic ethics, it soon devolved into hate-filled rants directed against female designers and writers, fuelling online threats of rape and murder, - whatever is was it now is rape and murder threats. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, I am talking about what GG says they are, by their claims, not what other people say they are. And that Boston Globe article section that is key is this "Backers of the GamerGate movement say the behavior of a few extremists is being used to smear their entire movement. “You can’t say that all people who support GamerGate hate women, just because one person in GamerGate might really hate women,” said PAX East attendee Andrew Sampson, a 20-year-old software developer from Atlanta. Sampson insisted GamerGate isn’t a war on women, but on corruption and dishonesty in video game journalism. “Video game journalists for the longest time have been colluding together,” said Sampson. “Basically taking bribes, taking offers to publish positive reviews.”". That's completely fair to use to explain the self-stated goals. To say "No, we can't use them because non-GG say the are something else" is a violation of objectivity and impartialness. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You are talking about presenting the claims of some anonymous posters as if they are treated as if they have legitimate basis to be for speaking for all anonymous posters. the sources are clear that they do not have legitimacy to make such claims and that the actions of those sending rape and death threats are clear evidence that they in fact are not speaking for anything other than "some" people. We cannot present it otherwise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

We have a named person, so no, anonymous doesn't count here. And it is clear that most reliable sources are aware that the core GG movement claims to be about journalism ethics, even if they don't believe this one bit and really think GG is about something else like harassment. It is completely silly and inane to try to avoid saying that GG movement self-states it is about ethics when this is clearly repeated throughout all sources. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

most sources are aware the the core of gamergate is harassment. see the Newsweek and Swedish studies of the actual posts and twits. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Newsweek does not say that at all. Only that of tweets they could classified, more were negative towards devs than positive. Nothing about harassment determined from the study. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I agree with Masem. There is no debate to what Gamergate supporters claim the goal of Gamergate to be. Nobody has said anything differently.

This line is about what proponents *say* Gamergate is about. It doesn't matter if the statement is true, false or even a blatant lie. It doesn't matter what individuals say they care about personally, they are not making a statement about Gamergate. All sources have quoted Gamergate proponents saying "the movement is about Ethics." It has been sourced extremely well that this has been said. To discredit the sources and imply gamergate proponents have stated otherwise is very much NPOV.

This entire debate over something otherwise so trivial just goes to show the preconceived judgement and POV pushing surrounding this article. So blatant in fact that not even this single item that would give the tiniest of justification for a reasonable person to be a proponent of gamergate is being so heavily opposed.

We DO NOT need to know what the sources say gamergate is about when writing what sources say gamergate proponents say it's about. TyTyMang (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually unless you have not read the sources, it is quite clear that there is a great debate in the sources as to what gamergate is about. there is not contention over the fact that some have stated gamergate is about X. there is great contention over whether those claims have any actual value or merit as representing anything. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

That's fine that there's contention of their self-stated claims being true or not. We are not to judge any way on this - whether the self-stated claims are true or false, or that the contentions are justified or not. We can source them, we can include them and present the issue that what GG is really about is not established in any reasonable manner. That's an objective stance to take. --18:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Which is why we should be doing some attribution about who believes what about the movement's beliefs, and spend some time dispassionately talking about what the movement believes it is. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

the "movement" has steadfastly refused to identify a leader or spokesperson or generate an official manifesto. we cover that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) it is self stated claims by some anons with the authority to represent themselves. thats all. to present them as anything more is inappropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom:You keep making the same argument about the validity of the statement. The validity of the statement does not impact the validity of it's existence.

• The statement is not up for interpretation.
• Who made the statement is not up for interpretation.
• Assuming contradictory statements exist is not up for interpretation.
• The statement of individuals about their personal interests is not a statement about the nature of gamergate by proponents.

Basically all the sources say "(gg supporters, et al) say Gamergate is about ethics." I have not seen one source say "(gg supports, et al) say Gamergate is about *insert anything else here*" TheRedPenOfDoom, your point may be valid for the rest of the article, but for this specific instance it is not. TyTyMang (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I have provided such sources above, repeatedly. Gamergate is a large and complicated controversy involving a huge number of people, and many reliable sources have said that there is no agreement among its proponents on what they want, what they stand for, and what they object to. Singal and the CJR say this explicitly. Ars Technica provides specific quotes from people within the movement highlighting this. We must rely on reliable sources; we cannot ignore them simply because you disagree with their conclusions. To go over quotes from people you personally identify as Gamergate member and try to use that to ignore the coverage of those sources is WP:OR; their conclusions are valid even if you feel that the people they quoted and spoke to and covered were not 'real' proponents, and even if you disagree with the way they analyzed their sources. In other words -- you are looking over the things that people have said and saying 'Gamergate is obviously entirely about this, and every single person who has posted the hashtag or supported it clearly agrees! I cannot find any quotes I accept saying otherwise!' But the sources I cited have examined the same things you have and came to the opposite conclusion; we cannot substitute your conclusion for theirs. --Aquillion (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Aquillion: "But the sources I cited have examined the same things you have and came to the opposite conclusion; we cannot substitute your conclusion for theirs." Missed the point once again. We are not looking for anyone's conclusion on anything. What we are writing is what proponents say it is about. You are trying to marginalize what gamergate proponents say about their goals. You can always state the sources have come to a different conclusion to what gamergate proponents say it's about, but you cannot change what they say based on this conclusion. I still have yet to see a source say "supports of gamergate say they are about misogyny" or anything but ethics for that matter.

And I have already addressed the sources you have referenced Aquillion. Singal's article, in specific, may violate BLP. In his article he linked to the blog he was referencing. And in the blog he referenced, it claimed his article was a misrepresentation of the blogger and his point of view. The the blog clearly states in the introductory paragraph that gamergate is about ethics. Singal falsely labeled the blogger an "Anti-Feminist" and falsely attributed him to the statement that the gamergate movement is about anti-feminism. This seems fairly libelous. TyTyMang (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

When dealing with an amorphous, leaderless, structureless phenomenon like Gamergate, Wikipedia editors simply can't use primary sources like direct statements by people claiming to represent Gamergate. Selecting the views of Gamergate advocates A, B and C while setting aside the views of X, Y and Z who also use the hashtag is interpretation and synthesis, which we don't engage in as Wikipedia editors. Instead, we should build and maintain this article based on summarizing what the best of the reliable, secondary sources say about the topic. That is the only policy compliant path available to us. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No one is talking about using primary sources. High quality RSes from the likes of NYTimes, WaPost, and so on do state that the self-stated goal of GG is "about ethics". They often immediately follow that with "but we doubt that", but they state was GG claims it is. That's acceptable. --MASEM (t) 05:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If you linked to a specific source, we could discuss that source. How can a leaderless phenomenon without a manifesto "self-state" anything? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think they are more subtle (and we should reflect that subtlety). They do affirm that GamerGate's stated purpose is reforming ethics in gaming journalism. Brianna Wu has stated that ethics are an issue in gaming journalism as well. The subtlety is that RS's state that GamerGate is inexorably linked to misogynistic attacks by nameless hordes that use the gamergate banner and its stated purpose is no longer its defining attribute. It's a subtle difference. Example of RS statement: "GamerGate grew out of a concern for ethics in journalism but soon became associated with harassment and threats primarily against women." Opinion piece: "GamerGate is about an orchestrated attempt to drive women from gaming and technology." There are many people that hold the latter view but reliable sources generally use the former. --DHeyward (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Break: Leaderless or Quantifier

Again, how can a leaderless amorphous entity without a manifesto possibly "state" anything? Since it can't, as I see it, we have to rely on what the reliable independent sources say about Gamergate. Those sources may report that many individuals claiming to speak for Gamergate mention journalism ethics issues, but any source that purports to speak for Gamergate as a whole calls its own reliability into question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: You'll have to ask the Sources where they got their information.

@DHeyward: It's our responsibility to avoid reading into the information such as trying to reflect their subtlety. Besides, how can the attribution of a statement have any subtlety?

Lets not forget what this discussion is about. It's about applying a quantifier to gamergate proponents who have stated gamergate is about ethics. Unless there is a source claiming gamergate proponents said gamergate is about something else, then using a quantifier is a misrepresentation of the sourced material. (i.e.: if we say "some" gg users say "x", then we need to have, while "other" gg users say "y") — Preceding unsigned comment added by TyTyMang (talk • contribs) 07:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Which sources in particular should I take my question to? Which reliable source purports to speak for Gamergate as a whole? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There are two excellent articles from highly reliable sources that, while they do not purport to speak for Gamergate as a whole (an impossible request to fill; journalists report, they do not purport), they take a top-down look at the controversy and report on the motivations of each side as a whole. The first oft-cited article is the Columbia Journalism Review article by Chris Ip. Here's a direct quote from that article: "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." Note the use of the word "many" rather than "some." Also note how the author speaks for the whole of the movement (by reporting, not purporting). This is in direct opposition of the current sentence in the article that reads "Some of the people using the #Gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism." When the most highly-regarded and oft-quoted source directly contradicts a sentence in the article space, it's a problem. The second highly-reliable article that takes a top-down look at the controversy is from the Washington Post, titled The only guide to Gamergate you will ever need to read. When a headline like that appears in the Washington Post, I would take them at their word. The reporter attempts to report on how Gamergate self-identifies: "Almost two months later, in fact, many people will still try to tell you that ethics in game journalism are all Gamergate’s really about." One again, there's that word "many," not "some." I cannot fathom how this point has met with such resistance. A manifesto about the movement does not exist, so short of that we go to the analysis of the best sources. The CJR and WaPo articles are two of the best sources we have on Gamergate. If we ignore or dismiss how highly reliable sources characterize the views of the movement, we are doing a grave disservice to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Later in that same Washington Post article, that instance of "many" is undermined by this: "[t]hat isn’t to say that everyone flying the #Gamergate banner is sexist/racist/crazy, and that isn’t to say there aren’t some decent arguments about journalism ethics being made. But whatever voices of reason may have existed, at some point, have been totally subsumed by the mob". Another Washington Post article from later that month quotes a supporter as saying the "more rational voices" are about ethics in journalism, which seems to be a common theme with the WP. Clearly, we have multiple sources—and even the same paper, quoting different people—saying multiple things. To say "many" based on two sentences would be UNDUE. Woodroar (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, the issue is not "what gamergate is", the issue is "what gamergate says it is". The quote you used is the conclusion made by the writer. It may undermine what the Many proponents have said, but it does not undermine that they said it. And to read into it to say that it is undermining itself is to be doing original research. To say "some" based on WP:OR would be even greater UNDUE.

So it looks like we're back to many.TyTyMang (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

TyTyMang hit the nail on the head, and I don't understand why we need to keep restating this point. It is true that the journalists eventually draw conclusions on Gamergate. But this discussion is not about that analysis. This current discussion is about how the journalists describe the stated goals of Gamergate, and whether these goals are described as being held by "many" of "some" of the supporters. And I must respectfully disagree; we're not basing this conclusion off of "two sentences." I can post many more examples, and I have before, but inevitably any source I post that states the exact thing we're discussing is straw manned and/or ignored. The question was: Which reliable source purports to speak for Gamergate as a whole? I gave two examples of highly-reliable sources with the exact quote. After I did that, another editor responds with Clearly, we have multiple sources—and even the same paper, quoting different people—saying multiple things. This is not true. I have presented two highly-reliable sources that use the word "most." This fact is not undermined at any point in the article. The fact that most Gamergaters believe their movement is about ethics is not contested. In fact, in the other WaPo article you posted, you must have missed this sentence: "Failing to disclose those conflicts, many supporters said, is 'disrespectful' to those who read game sites, and that's the core of what makes them so mad." So that's a third article, and three sentences that describe ethical views as being held by a majority of supporters. As an added bonus, here is a fourth article, from the New York Times "The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage. The more extreme threats, though, seem to be the work of a much smaller faction and aimed at women." The NYT writer describes the bulk of the movement as concerned about ethical problems, and a smaller faction concerned with harassment and threats aimed at women. Okay. So I now have four incredibly reliable sources saying that ethical concerns are the focus of the majority of supporters. Can you provide four equally reliable sources that say that ethical concerns are only the focus of a minority of supporters, as is currently claimed in the article space? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess maybe the better question is, if there is such disagreement in the sources, why are we using a qualifier at all? And why, if there is disagreement, are we using the qualifier some? It doesn't make sense, and it is not supported by the sources. We follow the sources. Right? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course this discussion is about the analysis, because that's virtually all we have. Except for a few direct quotes from supporters, everything mentioned above has been a summary from journalists of "how Gamergate supporters describe their movement" based on what those journalists have heard and observed: "many claim to be advocating greater ethics" from the CJR, "many people will still try to tell you" and "many supporters said" from the WaPo. All summary gathered from a variety of supporters, which must be balanced with the journalists' exceptions and qualifiers. Your other example, "work of a much smaller faction" from the NYT, only says that "[t]he more extreme threats" are coming from a small faction, which could imply that a larger faction is responsible for less extreme threats. Minor Threats, if you will. (Of course, I wouldn't ever suggest sourcing that opinion to the article, because that would be OR. Plenty of other sources have said it, though.) So we can't simply pick out the word "many" and call it a day: per NPOV, we have to give necessary context. And we have to balance it against reporting from other sources, like ArsTech and NYMag as mentioned above.

That being said, I've been considering this issue and I would support the use of "many" as long as we do it right, with proper context and attribution. So we could say something like According to the Columbia Journalism Review and the Washington Post, many Gamergate supporters claim they are concerned about journalistic ethics among the video game press. However, examples of alleged wrongdoing provided to them were found to be unrelated to journalism or ethics, but rather debunked conspiracy theories. Ars Technica and New York Magazine, on the other hand, consider it to be a manufactured PR campaign, where claims about ethical journalism are a cover for continued misogynist attacks. The two primary views of "ethics in journalism"—debunked vs. deception—in context and attributed to their sources. Woodroar (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying that the conclusion drawn by the sources about the goals of gamergate have some impact on the statement made by gamergate proponents? ... So if someone says "I am not guilty" but then they are convicted, we'll change what they say to "I am guilty". That's pretty much what's happening here.

This wording issue makes no sense to me. You want to attribute the claim as a statement of opinion from the sources about what gamergate proponents say gamergate is about. However, throughout the rest of the article we're going to attribute the findings of these same sources as statements of fact. What??? And seriously, the entire article is dedicated to debunking that claim. To marginalize the only claim being made by proponents of gamergate about gamergate is entirely UNDUE. Besides, what kind of a hate group hides it's hate? Never saw the KKK or westboro baptist church try to hide their hate. TyTyMang (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you actually seen the KKK or WBC do anything? What are you basing this opinion on? Claiming that they're "not racist, just trying to protect the world from white genocide/being punished for the homosexual's 'immorality'" is part and parcel with what they do. Interviews with members who have left those cults generally show that they were brought in with promises of community and fixing the things that were ruining the member's life, and when they're hooked, that's when they start opening up about the hate agenda.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 13:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The idea that "hate groups don't hide their hate," besides being egregiously wrong, was the recent subject of a thread on a major GG discussion hub. So I guess we shouldn't be surprised to see it percolating down to this talk space. drseudo (t) 16:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@TyTyMang: this has nothing to do with fact vs. opinion, but of using reliable sources properly and proportionally. Few sources care to report Gamergate supporters' self-professed goals with any credulity, and even those that do—the CJR and WaPo—immediately debunk them. And if a few sources consider them credulous, then we should attribute that. But most sources either don't care or consider "ethics in game journalism" laughable at best. By comparison, look at our article on Frank Abagnale. He himself claimed that he was a pilot, sure, and that's widely sourced. But we certainly don't belabor that point simply because he said it, and in fact we undermine it consistently because that's exactly what reliable sources do. Maybe Gamergate will someday inspire a film starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hanks and Christopher Walken and somehow be vindicated, but until that happens we need to follow the sources. Woodroar (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

We are talking in circles again. For the "some/many" question, it does not matter if the views are "debunked." It doesn't matter if the views are "credible." This is not a question as to the legitimacy of the claims. We are simply trying to determine the existence of those claims using reliable sources. Once we verify the existence, we determine whether those sources ascribe these views (whether credible or not) to the majority of Gamergate supporters. That's it. We follow the sources. The Frank Abagnale analogy is flawed for a few reasons, most obviously because he is a single person and his beliefs are relatively simple to ascertain, but I'll use him anyway to make my point. Abernale claimed he was a pilot, and reliable sources have verified this information. Gamergate supporters claim they are concerned with journalistic ethics, and the sources verify this information. WP:V has a way to handle when sources disagree. "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." Now, can we reasonably weigh the Columbia Journalism Review against ArsTechnica? Can we weigh an article in the Washington Post against an opinion piece in New York Magazine? Is that even close? Even having said that, I can't find a source for the quote "...consider the ethics to be a manufactured PR campaign, where claims about ethical journalism are a cover for continued misogynist attacks." Where is this stated in the articles? Can you give me a quote, because I seem to be missing it. Having said that, I do like your proposal, and I would propose this simplified edit: According to the Columbia Journalism Review and the Washington Post, many Gamergate supporters claim they are primarily concerned with journalistic ethics among the video game press. However, examples of alleged wrongdoing provided to them were found to be unrelated to journalism or ethics, but rather easily-debunked conspiracy theories. Does that still work? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. In the meantime, I notice we still have not deleted the qualifier "some". This has been discussed at length and consensus was reached. [1] , [2], [3] Marcos12 (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

No, consensus was not reached. And DUE doesn't mean that when two sources disagree with two other sources, we choose the two that we like best. If it's ten versus two, that's a different story, but that's not what we have here. Woodroar (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to re-enforce it, consensus was not reached. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Have either of you looked at the three citations I referenced? Please explain how consensus was not reached, because I am not following. There was extensive discussion on how to better reword the sentence in question. Agreement was reached among multiple editors. Consensus does not mean "unanimous", nor is consensus a vote. If you disagree that consensus was reached, please back up your assertion. Thanks. Marcos12 (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Your citations are all from Strongjam. 1) One person agreeing with you does not make a consensus. 2) Strongjam in your last citation added "some" back. 3) I do not agree with your proposed change. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky: For the record I'm sorry I ever started this discussion. I should have known that a discussion about one word would have spawned a weeks long argument. Also, as you said, the one change I was fine with was just one person agreeing, hardly quorum on a well trafficked talk page like this. — Strongjam (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahem. WP:DRNC. Also WP:UNANIMOUS. I agree, it is frustrating that a one-word edit requires this much discussion, but it's a reflection of the poor state of this talk page, and it's closest we have come to consensus on this issue in two weeks. So let's discuss the proposed change. We have identified an issue -- a sentence in the article is directly contradicted by several highly reliable sources (two of which are The Columbia Journalism Review and the Washington Post). We follow the sources, so several editors have worked on a proposal to change to that sentence that properly reflects the disagreement in the sources. Per WP:BALANCE: "[W]hen reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance." Marcos12 boldly made an edit to the sentence in the article space. If you have problems with that edit, I would gently suggest you discuss the problems with the proposed edit rather than decrying the fact that we have not achieved consensus. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It's the same argument over and over and over again. It's the same refutation. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, my comment about "no consensus" is that Marcos12 claimed consensus. Also, there needs to be RS support for the change. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any contradiction between the current version and any of the sources cited. When some reliable sources explicitly say "some people using the hashtag say X, and other people using the hashtag say Y", while others say "people using the hashtag say X," that is not a contradiction; it just means that the second source only covers part of the topic. It would be a contradiction if there were sources that explicitly denied that there was a variety of views and goals represented by the hashtag, but I see no contradiction in the fact that different articles have covered different aspects of the controversy. I definitely feel that none of the sources people have cited above give us any reason to doubt or question the numerous reliable sources that have explicitly stated that Gamergate's views and goals cannot be identified with any certainty; therefore, I think that it's about time to put a close to this discussion with the conclusion that the lead must qualify any statement of possible goals or ideology to make it clear that that is not accepted as universal to everyone using the hashtag; that is, we must use the word 'some' or something similar. --Aquillion (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: close this section start new sections

This section is a monster and covering a range of topics. I propose we close this, and each person who wants to continue a sub-topic, start a new section. I'm reaching the limit of my ability to follow what's happening in this section. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Reverted change to lede by Popcor11235

I reverted the removal of misogynistic from the lede by Popcor11235. We haven't build a concensus on that, and it's an on-going discussion. Also, should I have removed the box? It looks like one edit technically, but shows as two. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the {{cleanup}} tag. The tag is for non-content focuses changes (spelling, grammar, etc.) — Strongjam (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I also left a note one their talk page to come talk here with us. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Based on their recent edit history, this is going to be a three-peat of previous fun.--Jorm (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

10-4 good buddy! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

GTFO NYT Where?

Per Masem's suggestion, I'm trying to add a summary of this quote: "[...] While online harassment in the video game industry has made headlines of late — most notably, with the so-called GamerGate controversy, in which anonymous players threatened to rape and murder the game developers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu, among others — “GTFO” (an acronym for an obscene dismissal) makes the case that these are not isolated incidents, yelled or texted today and gone tomorrow. [...] “I do worry that the general public will focus too much on GamerGate and say, ‘Look at this crazy thing that happened,’ ” the film’s director, Shannon Sun-Higginson, said. “It was a terrible, terrible thing, but it’s actually symptomatic of a wider, cultural, systemic problem.”" from the NYT article.

Without rearranging too much, I was thinking of adding it to History or Subsequent Harassment (and rename Subsequent Harassment to something like Historic and Subsequent Harassment).

Input? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Film maker Shannon Sun-Higginson said that while Gamergate was a "terrible, terrible thing", the harassment was "symptomatic of a wider, cultural, systemic problem" and she hoped that the attention Gamergate received would not overshadow the wider issues.

Her basic take is not that much different than a lot of the others, "gamergate highlights an ongoing issue" - except that others come at it from "gamergate brought those issues (back) into the public eye in a horrific manner" while she is presenting "the public may see gamergate as sooooo horribly over the top awful that gamergate cannot represent anything other than a one time catastrophe -and so the public will go back to ignoring the baseline issues" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

So hard to do what Masem suggests without a radical rewrite. I generally agree that the History section needs some historic context in it, but I don't see how to do it without creating a redundant sub-section. I think I'll add this to the Social and cultural implication:Misogyny and Sexism subsection. It almost seems possible to move paragraph 2 of that subsection to the history section - maybe as Historic Context subsection. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

As a possible suggestion, a section that focuses on the "Culture war" (not just within the VG industry), located at the same level just after the current "Sexism and misogyny" subsection would seem to hit on this documentary, and the above articles on other -gates that GG is seen as the most visible example of. --MASEM (t)

For any historical event, one may point to deeper sources and antecedents that influenced and propelled it. So, yes, certainly Gamergate has been influenced int some ways by Movement Conservatism, by the legacy of Reconstruction, by resentment of the women’s movement, by all sorts of things. This is also true of popular music, breakfast pastry, and health insurance; in each case, the main duty of the encyclopedia is to describe that happened, not to invent excuses for it based on interpreting the cultural milieu. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

We should be trying to establish context as an encyclopedia , to help readers to understand what the broader situation around GG represents. If RSes have noted that GG is believed to be a major facet of a ongoing culture war that has poked up from other avenues (with GG being cited as such), there is no reason not to include that discussion, in brief. It helps to explain why this happened, that many don't think this was a random isolated thing. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite, with one qualification; our duty goes beyond describing what happened, to a fair discussion of what the secondary literature says are the causes and influences. GoldenRing (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

We do talk about the attempts by conservative talking heads to lure the gg under their wing via their support of the gg conspiracy theory that "nasty feminazis want to take your games away" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but this is stuff people are saying about GG ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Been working on this edit. Q: Does every sentence need a reference? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have 2-3 consecutive sentences, all on the same thought, that all originate from the same source, no, you only need one at the end (barring direct quotes). In general (on WP), we'd rather not see every sentence sourced, but sometimes that's required if we're building from many sources. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Article: GG & Brianna Wu

http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/brianna-wu-continues-to-stand-up-to-gamergate/article_1461ae21-ab26-59e4-8807-d6e5f481d2a1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForbiddenRocky (talk • contribs) 06:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Revert explanation

Regarding this.

• The first sentence has been well discussed here. Please try to gain consensus before changing it.
• "So-called" victims is just plain unacceptable.

— Strongjam (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Saw the revert, hoped it wasn't something I had done! Glad to see it wasn't. Koncorde (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Koncorde! I have (partially) reverted a bit of the stuff you've done- primarily the wording to the 'ethics' paragraph in the lead. I believe it's clearer and more accurate as it was then than how it was after you'd reworded it. I do hope you don't object. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel the new ordering was an improvement, either, so I've reverted it. While the culture war aspect has coverage, the vast majority of coverage about the topic has focused on the stuff covered by the 'garnered significant public attention' sentence (as it says!) We need to weight our article based on the weight given in reliable sources, which means I don't think it makes sense to lead by describing it as a culture war. --Aquillion (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the lead then stinks terribly, and I've commented above. About the initial changes, I will expand why the lead reads poorly in a moment. Koncorde (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Problems with the current lede

Some of the people using the #gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by opposing social criticism in video game reviews, which some see as being the result of an unethical conspiracy among their ideological opponents — particularly those in favor of feminism, progressivism and social criticism.

This sentence in the lede is muddled and hard to parse. It's not clear whether the two uses of "some" refer to the same group of people, or if the second is a subset of the first. The use of "ideological opponents" in confusing: it isn't clear whether it refers to people who oppose improving the ethical standards of video game journalism, people who support social criticism in video games reviews, or people who oppose doxing and rape and death threats. And it reads as though Wikipedia is saying that people "in favor of feminism, progressivism and social criticism" are being accused by GamerGaters of involvement in an "unethical conspiracy." (To be clear, maybe that's an actual accusation? I don't know.)

What about something like this: Some people using the #gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by opposing social criticism in video game reviews, which they say is the result of a conspiracy among feminists, progressives and social critics. Or Some people using the #gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by preventing feminists, progressives and social critics from criticizing video games. Or Some people using the #gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by preventing feminists and progressives from making social critiques of video games. None of those is perfect, but I feel like they are understandable, at least. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The sources that report on what GG want (without injecting their own comments/ideas/theories) do not say anything of the reason why. GGs purport to want more ethical standards in reporting by all, which to them is focusing on the gameplay, graphics, and the like and avoid weighing scores due to story or message, and making sure that any connections a reviewer has to the developer or other parties involved is revealed. Now, it is the case that the press believe that this is really an attempt to silence the "SJW" groups like feminists, etc. which these goals would accomplish, but no GG in any RS has made a statement like that. Combining them as above is synthesis of two different positions and not accurate to the sources. The first sentence, while confusing on "some", keeps the two thoughts separate. All that's needed is to address the second "some" as "some journalists" or the like, just to clear the difference. --MASEM (t) 05:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think if the current wording is fine by the sources we have, the proposed wording should be fine too- it's also a lot clearer. I'm gonna go ahead and put it in (specifically the first proposed sentence), but feel free to revert and explain here if you have a different wording for the lede you'd like to propose. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Masem, quick thing- please only tag edits as 'minor' if they are minor. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Didn't meant to mark it minor or without a change (hence a null edit after). --MASEM (t) 06:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The wording is not fine because again, these are two separate thoughts not combined in any source and the suggested change is a violation of WP:SYNTH. They have to be handled as separate thoughts even though there might exist the case that there are some GGers that think both are true. --MASEM (t) 06:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Going over our sources in the article, I think that the vast majority of reliable sources agree that, to the extent that anything concrete can be said about the general direction of GamerGate's goals and its ethical claims, these ethical claims are entirely focused on a belief that they are opposing an unethical conspiracy among feminists and progressives. That is, all of the sources that go into any details on the 'ethics' issues seem to agree that it is about fighting a culture war against what many people view as their unethical ideological opponents -- many commentators (as we note further down) have pointed out that Gamergate showed near-complete disinterest in any ethical concerns that didn't fit into its goal of opposing what it saw as an unethical feminist conspiracy. This is what the current ethical section says (with extensive sourcing): "Many Gamergate supporters contend that their actions are driven by a concern for ethics in videogame journalism, arguing that the close relationships between journalists and developers are evidence of an unethical conspiracy among reviewers to focus on progressive social issues." The 'feminist-progressive conspiracy theory' is absolutely core to the issue -- opposing that conspiracy is, generally, what reliable sources say people within Gamergate mean when they say they are concerned about ethics, and it is therefore important to make this clear in the lead. Obviously not all people who have used the #Gamergate hashtag have said the same things (which is why we have to qualify it with 'many'); but as far as I can tell, all reputable sources who have analyzed the ethics angle have concluded that it is based around this culture war against what people who use the hashtag claim is an unethical conspiracy among feminists and progressives. It isn't synthesis to report this fact; as you can see, it's well-sourced further down in the article (and, again, the lead must reflect the article.) If anything, I feel that your attempt to separate this into two points is WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The articles where they discuss the same issue with the same GGers (such as Singal's), does not a single give GGer state they are targetting ethics of GG because they believe there is a massive conspiracy in the media. This is not saying there can't be any GGers that say that, nor does the logic follow from one to the other, but at the same time, that doesn't mean there are any share both beliefs, that we can reliable source. The most conservative statement is saying "some believe they are doing it to do A, some believe they are doing it for B", without implying either way if there are common members in both groups. Additionally, none of the GGs state anything about a culture war, so mixing that logic up in to explaining their reasons for pursuing whatever ends is also synthesis. Further, even accepting the idea the GG know they are a culture war, we don't have shows that say a culture must include a conspiracy element. The culture war is clearly about some feeling their medium is being taken over by feminists, etc. but that doesn't necessarily imply a conspiracy, simply just looking at trends. So it is best to stay as far away as possible from synth, and simply state the two things we know - in RS - what GGers have said about why they might be in this for, and not imply connection, commonality or anything else that is not in their words, at least in the lead. In the body, we can include the counterpoints about culture wars often leading to paranoia, etc. which might explain some GG actions, but that's deep analysis that shouldn't be in the lead. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't need statements from people professing to be a member of the leaderless, amorphous group for our article and lede to reflect what reliable sources are saying. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes we absolutely need to. Otherwise we are not being objective. Yes, we need their statements in reliable sources, we can't degrade to forums and blogs, but we need their points from their mouths to establish their purpose. No matter how reliable the press might be, they cannot make that suppotion if they are including the statements made by the group. --MASEM (t) 00:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no NPOV violation from not putting out a claim from a random yahoo. And there is quite a lot of NPOV violation to be giving any weight to an anonymous nobody in comparison to the observations of reliable third parties. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Or a tl;dr version - to say (as in the wording you have made) that everyone in GG that is arguing about ethical practices (like reviews and citing existing relationships) is doing it because they believe there is a conspiracy in the media is not supported at all by sources, and hence synthesis. We can't generalize like that at all. ---MASEM (t) 00:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't say 'everyone', of course (this is part of the reason we need to qualify it with 'some', because it is not possible to make absolute statements about what Gamergate wants and what it stands for when everyone who uses the hashtag can have their own opinion on the matter.) However, we have extensive sources detailing the fact that Gamergate's ethics concerns are about opposition to what they see as a feminist or progressive conspiracy; just look over some of the six sources cited for the relevant sentence at the head of the ethics section, which say things like "Many of her critics took his claims as evidence of corruption in gaming journalism. So they coalesced around the #gamergate hashtag on social media, claiming they were out to expose a gaming conspiracy." It is extensively documented among reliable sources that the ethical concerns that had Gamergate so furious were the belief in a a progressive, feminist, politically-correct conspiracy that they needed to oppose -- a (to Gamergate) unethical effort by their ideological opponents to advance their views. This isn't synthesis, it's what the sources actually say. And, again, I'll reiterate that the lead needs to reflect the article (which currently accurately reports this fact); the constant exclusive focus on the lead is bad for the article. Obviously you believe that there is a separate, distinct Gamergate that doesn't believe in conspiracy theories and which is seeking ethical goals totally unrelated to opposing feminism, progressives, social-justice-whatevers, or the like; but this isn't, generally, what the sources say, so it's ultimately your assertions about Gamergate that are WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with what you are saying above, please look at the language you used Some of the people using the #gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by opposing social criticism in video game reviews, which they say is the result of a conspiracy among feminists, progressives and social critics. That "they" is the problem; it makes the second phrase applied to everyone that is identified in the first phrase. (It also creates the original problem identified at the top here). Now, it could be fixed to say Some of the people using the #gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by opposing social criticism in video game reviews, which some supporters say is the result of a conspiracy among feminists, progressives and social critics. It avoids the absolute inclusion that is the issue here, but doesn't dismiss the likelihood several of the GG supports talking about ethical reviews are of the conspiracy belief, just keeps that separate. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

That's basically what it said before, so I don't have any great objections to qualifying the second part with 'some', yeah. I think that at this point there is fairly broad agreement about what Gamergate means by 'ethical issues', though. I mean, while I disagree with your assertion that we need to rely on sources who claim they are 'within' Gamergate, to the extent that we have any sources that describe themselves as 'friendly' to Gamergate in the article, they near-universally agree that it is a culture war against what they see as a progressive or feminist conspiracy to advance their views, hide ethical breaches, and so on. Baldwin, for instance, who coined the hashtag, describes it as "a skirmish in the long culture war"; Nathaniel Givens' First Things article describes it the same way. It's one of the few things that just about everyone on all sides who has gone into depth on it seems to agree on, even if they disagree on things like who's right or wrong. --Aquillion (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw this pop back into view - someone must have adjusted the bot. While looking at the lead today I did make a couple of changes, Peter has reverted a couple of things but feel I need to go over those with everybody. First - this is what currently exists:

"Some of the people using the #gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by opposing social criticism in video game reviews, which they say is the result of a conspiracy among feminists, progressives and social critics. Commentators from the Columbia Journalism Review, The Guardian, The Week, Vox, NPR's On the Media, Wired, Der Bund, and Inside Higher Ed, among others, have dismissed the ethical concerns that Gamergate have claimed as their focus as being broadly debunked, calling them trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics in the industry."

And this is what I proposed (I have changed one thing, as I realise I accidentally omitted something)

"Some users of the #Gamergate hashtag have stated that their intended goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism and oppose the social criticism of video games, which they say is the result of a conspiracy among feminists, progressives and social critics. Commentators from the Columbia Journalism Review, The Guardian, The Week, Vox, NPR's On the Media, Wired, Der Bund, and Inside Higher Ed, among others, have dismissed these ethical concerns as being broadly debunked, calling them trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics in the industry."

To explain my amendments as below;

• "Some of the people using the" this is terrible English, redundantly over-wordy. "Some people" reads more clearly if we even need to identify the end users as "people" at all.
• "have said their goal is to improve" weak wording (perhaps "stated" is too formal), but I can survive with it. Hate the use of the impassive "said", but personal thing.
• "improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by opposing social criticism in video game reviews" - I don't believe any one quotation or citation can lead you to attribute or infer both of these statements into one whole cohesive outline. I also don't think one necessarily could even be inferred to be related to the other or should be. Furthermore, the larger picture also involves social criticism by non-journalists, who are not providing any such reviews but are critiquing from a social critic perspective. "Ethics in journalism" might be the tag line, but that isn't demonstrably the truth based on the sources.
• "have dismissed the ethical concerns that Gamergate have claimed as their focus as being broadly debunked" the use of "claimed as their focus" is unnecessary, a little weasely, and trite. If we are happy to use "said" in the first sentence, why do we need to use "claim" here? And what's "focus" about it? Are there other claimed focus? Are there other non-claimed focus? Koncorde (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with simplifying the 'ethics' paragraph, provided it isn't to the point that the transparently false nature of gamergate's ethics claims is obscured or trivialised. To this point: Perfectly fine with removing 'some of the people using...' for something better, and snipping 'claimed as their focus' if we clarify that that these are gamergates 'official' (insofar as reliable sources are able to gather) concerns being dismissed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the "official" nature of their claims is established by the first sentence saying "Some people using the hashtag...ethical standards". It's reasonably inferred that the second sentence is about those reliable media sources debunking those same "ethics". In its current state it's repeating itself using different words only to avoid repeating itself (much like the recurring use of Social Critic, Social Criticism etc). On the "people" question, can we not use "Gamergaters" or "gamergate supporters"?Koncorde (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Does "Gamergaters have stated that..." and snipping 'claimed as their focus' in favour of "...dismissed gamergates ethical concerns as..." seem reasonable as a way of lowering the wordiness of it? We could also drop a lot of lengthiness by replacing the long list of commentators with just 'Commentators have dismissed'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Not the wordiness per se, but it would make it easier to read - I would leave in the list of commentators for the moment as they make it clear the weight of sources (and given this is about ethics in journalism, they would be the ones to look to). Spotted one more thing:

• "improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by opposing social criticism in video game reviews, which they say is the result of a conspiracy among feminists, progressives and social critics."

What actually is being described as the result of a conspiracy? Social criticism in video game reviews? That sentence is a bit more of a problem than I thought. I am assuming it is trying to parse the claimed "Actually it's about ethics in games journalism" against the backdrop of the culture war comment previous. The clause actually reads like an accusation, and probably needs stronger and clearer wording along the lines of:

• "Some of the people using the #gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism and accuse feminists, progressives and social critics of conspiring to dictate the //gaming medium//."

Too strongly worded I know, but throwing things out there for discussion. Koncorde (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with things being 'too strongly worded'- the honest truth can be harsh. I like your proposal here compared to your earlier 'and' which read as more than a bit context blind. I'll wait for more input from other editors before endorsing its insertion, however. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, was only when re-reading sentence I noticed the larger issue that my brain was trying to find a solution to with the "and" would be better resolved by re-ordering the context. Koncorde (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion point

Further to reverts below, because the lead is now still absolutely awful. It has been horrendous for months, and I hate the fact that it continues to be horrendous. I dropped out significantly from editing this webpage after the first few weeks because no actual improvements were being made and (from what I can see) the contentious lead continues to be poor. Lets start from the beginning...(with added cynicism for humour)...

• "The Gamergate controversy concerns sexism in video game culture." What does this sentence even mean? It neither deals with the harassment, nor with the outlined goals. If this is meant to be a neutral sentence, then consider it neutered - both in content, meaning and context. If this is to be the opening line then it should concisely deal with as many of the critical issues as possible. Currently it says nothing.
• "It garnered significant public attention after August 2014" What garnered attention? The controversy garnered attention? What controversy? The Gamergate Controversy. Oh, what's that? ##crickets## ##tumbleweed## ##bell tolls in the distance## Oh, the controversy we wont explain until the second paragraph - meanwhile let us explain how the controversy came to our attention - before which, let me sing to you a song of my people. This is not good writing, and I wouldn't accept it in any other article (and I am amazed it is being accepted here). I don't buy the Aquillion argument of "it's important for us to give weight to things in accordance to their coverage, and (as the article's ordering reflects) the 'public attention' sentence is what has the most reliable coverage" line either. The ordering does not change the weight of the article - it changes the coherence. It does not change it "in accordance" to weight (heck, by that logic Quinn should be the top line because she came before everything, and remained the beacon of the harassment for far longer and brighter than anyone).
• "when several women within the video game industry" I would contend there were more than just women involved, and our first section includes the name of at least 1 notable male who quit the industry entirely who (rather clearly) should be mentioned given his relative significance and context.
• ""including game developers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu and feminist cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian, were subjected to a sustained campaign of misogynistic attacks coordinated in the online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in an anonymous and amorphous movement which ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #gamergate." The order of this sentence makes no sense. According to the reading of this sentence the harassment started, then coalesced into Gamergate...yet this article is called the Gamergate controversy, and our second sentence says that the Gamergate controversy garnered significant public attention before it was represented by the twitter hashtag the controversy is named after. Wait, what?

By this point I have no idea what has happened. I have no idea what the controversy is, only that the controversy was brought to our attention by the harassment of several women and that the controvery is sexist in nature. I have no idea where even Gamergate as a word came along, why it became a hashtag for it to even then become something controversial? So, just what is this article about?

• "Gamergate has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity." ah, fantastic, so we actually have a definition of Gamergate. So accordingly then the Gamergate controversy, which is about sexism in video games and harassment of women, is this Gamergate culture war made manifest right? So why is this appended to a paragraph about the hashtag? Didn't you just finish a paragraph about the hashtag? Why are we going backwards and forwards? Oh...yeah "weight accordance to coverage".

Now the snark included within this section is entirely tongue in cheek and I hope taken with the dose of irreverence intended, but I honestly can't explain why this lead is so irritatingly poor without it. Hopefully people realise this is not personal criticism - if you check my edit history you will see I have periodically raised by concerns about the lead but it has always been in a state of lock down or massive levels of overprotection for to even bother trying to discuss rationally with the dozens of SPA around. Koncorde (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

'Gamergate umbrella' in third history paragraph

Hey! I noticed the use of the phrase "Other victims were targeted by similar harassment, doxing, and death threats under the Gamergate umbrella."- I really don't like the wording on this one, so I've changed it a bit to read more plainly and a little less weasel wordy. Per Bosstopher's concern, I haven't attributed it to Gamergate as a whole- just Gamergate supporters. My revised sentence is 'Gamergate supporters targeted other victims with harassment, doxing, and death threats.' I've also changed 'their opponents' to 'Gamergate supporters' in the sentence after. Is this agreeable? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

For what little my opinion is worth, I think the change is an improvement both in style and clarity. Dumuzid (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Are there any 'Gamergate supporters?' We use the term and keep expanding it's breadth but there doesn't seem to be any in the reliable sources. They seem to have achieved a somewhat mythical status reserved for the likes of Santa and his elves. --DHeyward (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what your complaint is here; do you have a preferred term? I suppose we could say something like "Users of the #GamerGate hashtag and their ideological allies," but I am not sure the semantic difference is worth the inartful wording. Dumuzid (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty decent solution I guess. Bosstopher (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"Collusion"?

I am confused by a sentence in the article, regarding a mailling list for gaming journalists. The article states "Yiannopoulos and Gamergate supporters saw the mailing list as evidence of collusion between journalists." Collusion, in the most general sense, means "a secret agreement for an illegal purpose". What is the illegal purpose being alleged here? The exchange of emails? As far as I know that is legal. Augurar (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Many things that gamergaters claim are complete nonsense- you're not alone in realising this. We accurately report that they saw a legal act as collusion- that we don't highlight their stupidity is necessary as I believe no reliable sources have yet pointed out this particular idiocy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there are legal issues regarding journalism and promotional materials as set by the FTC (this what the whole thing with Shadows of Mordor and paid, undisclosed reviews was about) - if you are promoting a product that is not yours and you have been given some type of compensation for this (which includes getting a copy of the game), you are supposed to disclose that. However in regards to this, I am not aware of any GG claim that rests on the FTC requirements (it's opined in RSes that the whole Shadows of Mordor thing was seemingly ignored by GG), only that GG state there is illegal collusion (per the GameJouroPro thing below) but not why they think it illegal. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This is why.[4]. The list owner asking journalists to take a stand on a developing story that includes journalists is an attempt at collusion and it's why the list no longer exists. It's why the list owner had to apologize and it's the way it was covered in reliable sources. --08:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)

As the article highlights, there was no collusion in regard to Quinn, either. Gamergaters have always had a fairly questionable understanding of what constitutes journalism ethics, and their response in regard to GameJournosPro reflects this. However, our role is to report on the accusations, so the "collusion" wording is a reference to those. - Bilby (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Do we have any sources which talk specifically about accusations of collusion and the basic misunderstanding of the definition of the word collusion that gamergaters display? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

i think most sources assume that it is so blindingly obvious that gamergaters have no understanding of what the words they are using actually mean that the sources don't explicitly call it out. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Also a thing to keep in mind that wikt is not the authority here on meaning: MW has it "secret cooperation for an illegal or dishonest purpose", and arguably it is the "dishonest" part that comes into play here. Oxford "Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others". --MASEM (t) 23:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect to my fellow editors, whether the term 'collusion' is apt or not or whether it fits the dictionary definition is not our call to make. It seems supported by the sources to me, and that should be enough. Dumuzid (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact that GG supporters saw it as collusion, even if they fundamentally misunderstand the word, is supported by the sources. One of the hallmarks of GG has been supporters seeing conspiracy theories in the most mundane things. — Strongjam (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of Edits by User:Depression Quest

I reverted two edits by a brand new user, User:Depression Quest because:

• Neither seemed to be required, and one felt to be original research;
• The username is suspect, as "Depression Quest" is the name of Zoe Quinn's video game that started so much controversy;
  • Said user does not imply any affiliation with the game or Zoe;
• The first edit by this user upon reaching Autoconfirmed is to this page;
• The user did not communicate on the talk page;
• Several previous edits [5] [6] [7] [8] by this user in other topics are suspect or vandalism.

I think WP:DUCK but you know. --Jorm (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

10:4 good buddy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I will certainly make no observations at all about the brand-new user User:Depression Quest, despite WP:PRODNAME and the above. Observing the topic of the edits, I mention that, In the past, similar editing patterns have often been prelude to extensive discussion of dead horses -- some of them (as regular readers will recall from our recent delightful discussions) have been revived hauled out of storage and propped up once more at regular two-week intervals for the past six months. The day may come when the courage of men may fail and we will once again take up these tired matters, but that day is not today, right? Admin advice says that all we need to do here is register lack of consensus for the dead horse, and that no further discussion is required. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I blocked them --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Think Progress article

Hi! I'd completely forgotten about this, but- given that we've solved any issues of outing (all wikipedia editors named have given their consent for this article to be mentioned), I'm putting it back in the bit up at the top of this page. Let's discuss it here if there are complaints other than outing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

More on other culture war aspects which GG is the most visible (Hugo Award)

Hugo Award nominations said to be hijacked by people with the same GG mentality. (We discussed this a few weeks ago, the topic scrolled off to archives) --MASEM (t) 17:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• another article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/11517920/Hugo-Award-nominations-spark-row-over-diversity-in-sci-fi.html ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

and another one http://www.ew.com/article/2015/04/06/hugo-award-nominations-sad-puppies Krano (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems like something more for the Hugo awards article. It's not really anything new, there was controversy last year as well with Vox Day getting a nom. — Strongjam (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, continuing from the previous discussion where a GG-like issue arose in the comics books world, the point of mentioning this as part of the culture war is that GG is being seen as the tip of the iceburg, and more events are being affected due to similar thought processes that GG presented. Obviously we don't need to go into deal, but when discussing how GG is seen as part of a culture war, these events cited by RS should be included since reports have named GG in line with them. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

While I've listed a bunch of articles with this phenomena, I think this is too soon to add to the main article. I do think we should keep an eye open for these kinds of articles. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• another: http://www.ew.com/article/2015/04/06/hugo-award-nominations-sad-puppies — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForbiddenRocky (talk • contribs) 19:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/04/07/addendum-to-yesterdays-letter/ about the slander, smearing and character assassination. And word of the creators of https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/fort-living-room/ about the sameness of GamerGate's slander and smearing narrative.However these two may not be within the WP:RS. TheRealVordox (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Two people's personal blogs are absolutely not RS, yes. Parabolist (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. These Blogs not RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I've seen screenshots and blogs purporting to show that people associated with the Sad Puppies (the Hugo hijackers' name for themselves) tried to get people associated with GamerGate to help them with their Hugo takeover. So there is a stronger linkage than just an idealogical one or both being part of a larger movement. But I don't have the reliable sources that would pass muster for this here (nor any evidence that the efforts to involve GG had any success). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

[9] talks about potential connections, but nothing proven yet. (A note is that the people leading Sad Puppies have identified themselves, having organization, etc. so the press have tried to talk to them about their motives/goals; however, they have also existed before GG did). I would still keep it to noting that the hijacking has been seen as a similar movement like GG, at the present time, and not connect the two movements until the connection is fully verified. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• more Gamergate-style furore after sci-fi awards hijacked ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • not RS, but has many links perhaps worth looking into | GRR Martin (from MarySue) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/09/george-rr-martin-right-wing-broken-hugo-awards?CMP=share_btn_gp ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/04/the-culture-wars-come-to-sci-fi/390012/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForbiddenRocky (talk • contribs) 06:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/402587,gamergate-style-factionalism-has-changed-the-face-of-this-years-hugo-awards.aspx ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone notice what the Hugo Award page has been doing? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hugo awards page has said nothing, and in the grander scheme of things, probably appropriate there at least at the present time.

The Altantic article that I just saw, that gives us a potential reason to include that GG is actually involved (not just related) via "Rapid Puppies". Still thinking this is a sentence or two to talk about in addition to the "tip of the culture war iceberg" aspect. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Rabid puppes, not rapid puppies. One is like Gamergate, the other isn’t. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Masen check out the talk page at Hugo Awards. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, my accidently type, and I can see that they're trying to figure out the approach before updating a number of related pages. We can figure out where they are centralizing the information that relates to this specific incident to link to that here, and thus avoid going into details beyond the connection in both concept as a culture war and the potential engagement of GG members via Rabid Puppies. --MASEM (t) 01:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

1) The connection between the Sad/Rabid Puppies and GG is there to be seen, but I'm not seeing good RS about it. And what I'm seeing from looking around: many people who are involved want to divorce the two as much as possible (with a few notable exceptions). SHORTER: comment not sure how it makes sense to mention this here or let the Hugo Award page handle it.

2) The Hugo + GG stuff really belongs with a list of the RS that are using GG as an example of whats happening in various medias (e.g. gaming, comics, SFF, etc), but that would require a level of SYNTH I'm not comfortable with. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

On the last, no , not really. The RSes are saying, to effect, "These are things that can be attributed to the same mentality that GG developed from as part of a culture war". It is not original research if these events have been commented to be comparable to GG by strong RSes to list them as related issues. There ought to be a larger article about this current culture war, which these all would be compounded in, but I don't think we have one yet. --MASEM (t) 21:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy?

So, now this sentence is in the lead section:

Some of the people using the #gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by opposing social criticism in video game reviews, which they say is the result of a conspiracy among feminists, progressives and social critics.

I know a lot of supporters of GamerGate and read most of the news articles that came out in the fall, both pro and con, and the only "conspiracy" talk I saw was on message boards and it is definitely a fringe point of view. Even calling it a "conspiracy" implies some sort of organization that didn't exist. Some GamerGate supporters might have seen some malevolent force opposing them were atypical and shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. Many, very many GamerGate supporters said that the dispute was about ethics in gaming journalism but only a fringe group viewed it as some sort of imaginary conspiracy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like that change came from [edit] by User:Woodroar. The lede already says that certain people think it's a conspiracy, and the reverted change only would have told people what that supposed conspiracy involves. Does anyone else think this violates WP:NPOV? Safrolic (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that phrase came out of a GameStar article by Graf (in German). That article isn't included anymore. Liz commented in one of the discussions about the translation and article. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

There is plenty of conspiracy to go around. take your pick

• Forbes
• Washington post
• Ars Technica
• The Verge
• The Guardian
• The Week
• Inside Higher Ed

etc. pretty much the only way to get to "ethical issues" as identified by gg is a trip down conspiracy lane. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Also Chess, Shira; Shaw, Adrienne (2015). "A Conspiracy of Fishes, or, How We Learned to Stop Worrying About #GamerGate and Embrace Hegemonic Masculinity". Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 59 (1): 208–220. doi:10.1080/08838151.2014.999917.. Which is a paper pretty much just about these "conspiracies". — Strongjam (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)