Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

'related' threat of mass shooting

Briefly: We cannot assert that something is 'not gamergate because it didn't use the hashtag'. Harassment that is 'related' to the gamergate harassment is, in this case, just gamergate harassment without the hashtag. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

We cannot assert that certain people have engaged in wrongdoing without substantive evidence that those people did it. Chrisrus (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That suggests we would examine evidence and do some kind of investigation. All we should do is summarize what reliable sources say. We're talking about a large amorphous and mostly anonymous group here, not a named individual. — Strongjam (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Not us, if the FBI or someone examined the evidence and did some kind of investigation, and said so, we could pass their conclusions along. But we shouldn't pass along accusations of wrongdoing without some such substantiation. Chrisrus (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

If reliable sources report that wrongdoing occurred, we clearly ought to report that wrongdoing occurred. If reliable sources cannot currently identify the person who committed a specific offense, but believe that offense was committed in support of a cause or organization, we clearly should report that. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Might I point out that the accusation of the mass shooting being related to Gamergate was made by Sarkeesian herself, someone gamergate has been clearly critical of and even Kotaku of all sources have stated the existence of a third-party troll harassing her. Do we have any sources citing actual evidence of the movement supporting these claims in any significant amount?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That has always been my concern with this and other points. We rely heavily on the word of Sarkeesian etc - very little has any substance if we take that away, except for an outpouring of righteousness that itself is based on a premise. This whole mess could have been avoided if we'd simply followed NOTNEWS, binned all the op-eds and waited for the academics. Newspapers are not good sources for stuff like this: they are as likely to be manipulated, to jump to conclusions etc as any passer-by in the street ... and they are almost always non-neutral (especially The Guardian, in the case of this article, although it is the newspaper I choose to buy every day). - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Might I point out that the accusation of the mass shooting being related to Gamergate was made by Sarkeesian herself The cites sources make the connection. We are not relying on Sarkeesian's opinion here.

* The threats against Ms. Sarkeesian are the most noxious example of a weekslong campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry and its culture.

* The threats are loosely tied to an online movement widely referred to by the Twitter hashtag “#GamerGate.”

* The harassment escalated to death threats and, in October 2014, Sarkeesian and Utah State University cancelled a speech after she got another one.

— Strongjam (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You obviously do not know how most journalists work. They're in the business of selling newspapers etc and they'll parrot anything that might help with that. They follow trends, each other and anyone with a splash issue. - Sitush (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That last one is from a retrospective piece from a month ago, not one of the many pieces that came out in the days following the threats. — Strongjam (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

And, regardless, "journalists suck" doesn't change our WP:RS policy. As an encyclopedia, we're still required to reflect mainstream coverage; if it sucks, well, hopefully one day it will suck less and we can cover that. But we're not an investigative journal or a counterculture zine out to spread some hidden truth the mainstream media has suppressed or overlooked. We're an encyclopedia, which means that we have to stick with the consensus among reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's address some arguments for asserting that the threat was not gamergate affliated:

• We cannot assert that certain people have engaged in wrongdoing without substantive evidence that those people did it.

Gamergate is not a living individual, and we do not research claims ourselves- reliable sources making the connection is enough for us.

• Might I point out that the accusation of the mass shooting being related to Gamergate was made by Sarkeesian herself[...]

That doesn't mean we don't include it.

• Newspapers are not good sources for stuff like this[...]

You might want to take it up the your issue with the reliability of the multiple reliable sources we have for this (CTV, CNN, The Guardian, BBC, the NY Times, Salt Lake Tribune have all tied the threat to 'gamers' or gamergate) with WP:RSN. You'll be happy to know not all of them are newspapers. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to include it, then we need to make it clear it's based on her accusation. She could claim I walked in front of her house draped in the union jack whistling God Save the Queen and get someone to quote her, doesn't mean it happened. Biggest problem right now is several of these statements are being taken as fact in the article's prose from people that Gamergate as a movement is locking horns with. Unless there's sources citing concise proof that GG as a movement is in fact doing those actions, it's hearsay and should be acknowledged as such within the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No, we're not going to demand proof from reliable sources. If the reliable sources themselves make the connection (which some have) that is enough for us. Verifiability, not truth. You may find this policy useful. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I am suggesting Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu and Zoe Quinn's statements on Gamergate should be directly attributed to them because of their heavy involvement. I would say the same for Eron Gjoni, Milo Yacantrememberhowtospellhislastname, or C H Sommers. We need to consider that opinions may indeed be swayed one way or another across this whole event and shouldn't be taken as "this is exactly what happened".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Which is unfortunately not related to the intent of this section, hence my confusion. Sorry about that! You should totally create a new one to discuss your opinions about attributing things, though. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No it belongs here to be quite frank, because the attribution of the shooting threats was indeed done by Ms. Sarkeesian, not by the University nor the FBI, both of which investigated the event. We should be making it clear she's making the claim that gamergate threatened violence against her, not "Gamergate did this" flatly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

newspapers and magazines seldom disclose all the sources on which their reports depend. You cannot conclude that, becaus some possible source is not explicitly cited in a report, that source was not used. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Nor can we be sure that it was used. Yours is a pointless argument. The press routinely machinate - "sources close to the government" is one of the more obvious examples of playing the game. Protecting sources is an important constituent of press freedom but it can cause a lot of problems elsewhere. Even more so when there is a whiff of one paper picking up a story from another and running with it as, for example, happens periodically in the UK "silly season" when spates of reports about a particular issue mysteriously spin into something every paper must publish and then soon after get dropped (eg: kids getting badly bitten by dogs, which in reality happens pretty much daily). - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Did Sarkeesian associate the Utah bombershooter threat with Gamergate? Quotes of her from WaPo state Multiple specific threats made stating intent to kill me & feminists at USU. For the record one threat did claim affiliation with #gamergate [1] Her comment doesn't clarify which threat was from GG. Do we any source attributed or otherwise stating the utah bombershooter threat was from GG?Brustopher (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No Sarkeesian did not link the shooting threat to gamergate (it's why we separate the first and second threats in the body). WE've had this discussion before. Reliable sources with detail don't link the shooting threat to GamerGate. We even make that distinction in the body. The threat doesn't mention gamergate or games. Sarkheesian distinguishes between the gamergate threat and the shooting threat. The threats occurred on different days. The nexus is that it is a speech by Sarkeesian and she had received threats before and the the shooting threat was generally anti-feminist. The relationship is that she received both gamergate and anti-feminist threats at the same time. --DHeyward (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

In that case everything everyone's talking about above seems kind of irrelevant. I'd support removing the shooting thread from the lede (I don't know why I called it the bomber threat above, apologies), unless there are sources which attribute there are good sources which attribute the shooting threat to gamergate that I've missed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brustopher (talk • contribs)

Two separate threats: Though the email (mass shooting) threat to Utah State did not mention #GamerGate, it fits a sad trend in increased intimidation toward its critics.: [2] Other sources (in addition to the one in the article) clearly mention the first threat mentioned shooting and the second threat mentioned gamergate After the mass shooting threat was sent to the school late Monday, a second threat arrived Tuesday. That one, USU spokesman Tim Vitale confirmed, claimed affiliation with the controversial and sometimes violent online video gamers' movement known as GamerGate.[3] And the threat can be read here (as well as it's characterization as anti-feminism): [4]. Sarkeesian tweeted about receiving three threats with one mentioning gamergate. It's clear the threat mentioning gamergate was not the shooting threat. It's related only that it is the same event. --DHeyward (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It's also related in that the reliable sources (e.g., those quoted by Strongjam) relate the threats. Really, to me, that should be enough. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

My two cents on what I added above. I think there is enough for us to mention them being related. If editors want to word it to make sure we don't assign blame for the mass shooting threat that's fine. I think the CTV wording the best, although clearly one of the threats is more than just "loosely tied". — Strongjam (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this is conflating the broad category of death threats with the specific threat of a mass shooting a la the Montreal Shooting. There is no question there are gamergate threats, the question is whether the specific shooting threat was GamerGate. Note that general death threats that Sarkeesian has received did not force cancellations, only the specific shooting threat prompted her to cancel that event. The lack of a tie between GamerGate and the shooting threat creates a massive synthesis problem where we attribute the cancellation to GamerGate. It all unravels when we don't synth the connection of the shooting threat to GamerGate. The details of the shooting threat are undoubtedly a part for Sarkeesian's bio, but they are not gamergate. The gamergate threats that she has received, did not force any other cancellations per the sources but that specific shooting threat did. It wasn't gamergate though. --DHeyward (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

'It wasn't gamergate because it didn't use the hashtag' cannot work as an excuse. The gamergate harassment campaign as described by our sources is identifiable as much by the pattern of harassment (targets, threats, motivation) as it is by idiots appending everything they say with '#gamergate'. The sources (ny times, cnn, bbc, etc.) clearly tie the threats to gamers specifically and gamergate as the general catch-all term for/cause of the harassment of feminist voices in the industry. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This is the sort of position that we are in here and it is why we should stick strongly to NOTNEWS. - Sitush (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Bad comparison. This ISIL story you linked while going viral on the internet, doesn't seem to have been picked up by any major news providers (apologies if wrong). It also only took a few days for the press to debunk it. While there were some factually incorrect accusations about certain gamergate supporters flying around in the first few days of the controversy, those are now gone for the most part. I would be interested in seeing an article only made of academic sources drafted, but this is a really poor comparison.Brustopher (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a poor comparison but it is not entirely without merit. FWIW, I find it interesting that those who like to quote The Guardian when working on articles relating to women tend not to quote the numerous columns that newspaper has published which try to set things in perspective or even outright dismiss the outrage. I wouldn't cite them because, as with much of this article, they are mostly op-eds, but there are columnists at The Guardian, both male and female, who quite frequently attempt to put things into what they believe is a more rational perspective. They may be wrong but, equally, so too might be the op-ed writers whom we do in fact cite. - Sitush (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: That's a rebuttal to a straw-man argument. Sarkeesian was a feminist before gamergate. She received death threats before gamergate. The Montreal Shooting was before GamerGate. The threat didn't just lack the GamerGate tag, it lacked any mention of gaming, feminist frequency, tropes or anything else related to GamerGate. According to the FBI in the RSes, it fit the pattern of broad anti-feminist threats that Sarkeesian received long before GamerGate and also threatened other campus feminists - all unrelated to Gamergate. He referred to Marcus Lepine as a hero for "standing up ... to feminism...." Marcus Lepine's motive certainly was not GamerGate. Believe it or not, GamerGate is not responsible for all things anti-feminism and feminism exists beyond the confines of GamerGate. It's synthesis to relate them in a causative fashion. The novelty of this threat is that it was a) a shooting threat (a first for Sarkeesian) and b) threatened an event that was also threatened by GamerGate. That's it.--DHeyward (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry DHeyward, there's a slight ambiguity in your statement--the FBI said in the RSes that the prior threats were 'unrelated to Gamergate?' That specific gamergate quote caught my eye. I don't think that's what you meant (the exact quote), but I wanted to be clear. The sense I get from the RSes (and elsewhere) is that gamergate is seen as part of an ever-roiling reactionary movement including other anti-feminist elements, from Lepine to legitimate mainstream entities. That would provide ample interrelationship, but I would only suggest that be inserted in to the article to the extent it is the general agreement among RSes. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. She's received threats prior to the GamerGate controversy (this article) and the FBI has said the "mass shooting threat" and the pre-gamergate death threats are similar and there is nothing specific in that threat to presume it's GamerGate Controversy related or has anything to do with sexism or misogyny in the video game industry. Are you asserting, though, that GamerGate was a motivation for Lepine (the shooting was in 1989 and didn't mention computers, games or journalism)? Or that any GamerGate supporter is motivated by Lepine? Such a broad view would make GamerGate a meaningless extension of pre-existing views and a WP:COATRACK article that should be reabsorbed into the parent if there is no difference. Instead, the sources make a distinction about what GamerGate consists of (including threats). The FBI simply noted that the shooting threat against USU and Sarkeesian was similar to her other pre-GamerGate controversy threats that were broadly anti-feminist but not specifically gamergate or related to sexism in video games or videogame culture (ostensibly the context of this article). The Venn diagram is that the threat and Sarkeesian overlap; Sarkeesian and GamerGate overlap but Gamergate and the threat do not overlap. The full threat is here:[5].

File:Sark threat.jpg

Mass shooting threat to USU

--DHeyward (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks DHeyward. I understand the quote and your point, but the sense I get from the RSes is that the Venn diagram you posit is more the classic popular version thereof; that is, three interlocking circles. But reasonable minds can differ. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Given the preponderance of the RS's which identify the threat as gaming & gamergate affliated, and the lack of arguments which directly address this (reasons why these reliable sources are unreliable for this statement, or any reliable sources that disagree), I'm reinstating the wording as it was. Remember that we can't use original research to change the articles content as we wish, and must depend on reliable sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe the sources and consensus both support "related to" as a compromise from simply removing from the lead as being being not a gamergate threat. Sources don't support the direct attribution of the threat to gamergate. That's pretty clear. Even the most inclusive source disclaims direct linkage and categorizes it was the "type of harassment" rather than actually deriving from GG. "related to" is the closest link there is. This [6] and [7] are not original research. They have the most detail and per RSes should be used in places where other RSes have less detail. From StL Trib The most detailed threat, which has prompted an FBI investigation, does not identify as a GamerGate action but rather a USU student attacking feminism. --DHeyward (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to wholesale steal the sources Strongjam pointed out earlier, including a rather recent reflective piece, that tie the shooting threat to the Gamergate harassment campaign.

* The threats against Ms. Sarkeesian are the most noxious example of a weekslong campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry and its culture.

* The threats are loosely tied to an online movement widely referred to by the Twitter hashtag “#GamerGate.”

* The harassment escalated to death threats and, in October 2014, Sarkeesian and Utah State University cancelled a speech after she got another one.

It's tiring to repeat the points that have been made here time and time again. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Those sources support the "related" langauge DHeyward is using (although there really ought to be a better way to phrase it. Here are samples from the same article (emph. mine)

• 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.[8]
• The threats are loosely tied to an online movement widely referred to by the Twitter hashtag “#GamerGate.”
• The Utah State cancellation came amid the growing Gamergate controversy[9] (the above quote from the same article refer to harassment that began years ago escalating)

Putting all that together with the selected tweets by this Sarkeesian in this WaPo article[10] (where she notes that one of the threats she received was clearly affiliated, but not the mass shooting one) I have to conclude that DHeyward is right. Brustopher (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

These bits of this lede sentence

Some of the people using the Gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by opposing alleged collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics, which they believe is the cause of increasing social criticism in video game reviews.

editorial thoughts processs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A. Some of the people using the Gamergate hashtag B. have said their C. goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism D. by opposing alleged collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics, E. which they believe is F. the cause of increasing social criticism in video game reviews. A. D. E. F. B. C. A. Some of the people using the Gamergate hashtag D. by opposing alleged collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics, E. which they believe is F. the cause of increasing social criticism in video game reviews. B. have said their C. goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism A. Some of the people using the Gamergate hashtag D'. oppose alleged collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics, E. which they believe is F. the cause of increasing social criticism in video game reviews. B'. Some of hashtag users have said their C'. goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism. A. Some of the people using the Gamergate hashtag D'. oppose alleged collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics, E. which they believe is F. the cause of increasing social criticism in video game reviews. B'. Some of hashtag users have said their C'. goal for their actions is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism.

Some of the people using the Gamergate hashtag oppose alleged collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics, which they believe is the cause of increasing social criticism in video game reviews.

Some of hashtag users have said their goal for their actions is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism.

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a positive edit. Artw (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Article from Spiked

[11], from the liberal-leaning magazine Spiked (magazine) (which is odd as most of the other media support for GG has come from the conservative side, but in reading, I think this side is more backing GG in the consumer aspect, while the conservatives appear to be backing GG from the social/feminism aspects). It's one source, and thus would be far too much to give more than a sentence-worth of time, but I think between this and other conservative works that back the GG side, we probably need to have one paragraph to explain that these works are backing GG for various reasons. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't think we can use Irene Ogrizek RS. She's rather well known for posting anti-feminist stuff to A Voice for Men. And I think it's OR/Synth to "xplain that these works are backing GG for various reasons". Thought I'm surprised there isn't RS to back a statement that conservatives back GG. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Why does her opinion on being anti-feminist matter? It's still an opinion (and I stress, as an opinion, not statements of fact) that is a different opinion from mainstream but aligns with what GG has said it is. It's not OR to list out what sources back GG, just as we have listed out sources that have condemned GG based on the original accusation. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A Voice for Men is the more salient point. That opinion would have problems with UNDUE and FRINGE. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"It's not OR to list out what sources back GG" is not the same as "explain that these works are backing GG" ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

And again, why does it being A Voice for Men (which I do recognize is a not a very popular viewpoint) matter? And I stress again that given all the various media that is apparently right-wing that are reliable sources for their opinions (not facts), that it is not undue for a short paragraph to outline some of these sources or persons that have come out in favor of GG. As to the second, I would make sure that we have to make sure the language of the source article says with clarity they support the GG movement or the like, rather that just writing about it and then talking their own ideals but without support. That's not OR to do that as long as we're not guessworking on if they support or back GG. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you want to your pet OR again. No, you have to back up things with RS. No OR. No SYNTH. I don't disagree with what you want to write, but I haven't been able to find RS to support it. "Though I'm surprised there isn't RS to back a statement that conservatives back GG." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, from reading some of the GG posts/statement some of them want to claim they are liberals. So your notion of self-report is weak. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If that's the issue, then we don't even need to ID the slant these other sources take, but still should be including these other sources that appear to speak in favor of GG. We can let the reader review the author or work, and make the judgement of which slant these works are, but importantly, they are counteropinions to the mainstream view that should be at least touched on within a single paragraph at most. The only reason I was considering the slant angle is for narrative grouping but that's not required to do it. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Masem, I'd just like to note that to me, you're edging a bit close to "opinions on the shape of the Earth differ" territory. Counteropinions are not, again to me, deserving of inclusion by dint of the fact that they are counteropinions. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

We're not talking FRINGE here, however. With "shape of the Earth", ample volumes of scientific evidence clearly put any flat earth stances in the FRINGE category. With a controversy where no right answer has been determined or likely will be determined, there is no such application of FRINGE, though we still need to be wary of UNDUE, and hence why its not a call to drive equal balance of viewpoints. But as per the RFC, when we are aware of biased coverage of a topic within the sources, we should be looking towards including other sources so that we can eliminate that bias in WP's writing. Again, one paragraph at most to outline opinions that these other sources have taken is in no way a violation of policy and in fact helps us to document the controversy better. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The issue, Masem, is that a 'right answer' has been determined- Gamergate is and has been since inception about the harassment of diverse voices and those who seek diversity in the gaming industry. Please stop beating the horse- you've killed it, it's dead, walk away. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope, can't accept that nor can WP write as if that is fact. That's the predominant view, but it's just a view, not an answer. There has been nothing presented in any reliable source that we on WP should be taking as the definitive result in considering NPOV policy. Thus presenting alternate opinions from the mainstream is appropriate to do. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

So then, Masem, your argument relies upon an identification of Spiked as being part of the mainstream, yes? Dumuzid (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I would argue Spiked is mainstream in that it is work that doesn't focus on one area of interest like gaming sites. It does not necessarily represent the mainstream political views because of its specific political slant but that's not how I'd identify "mainstream". --MASEM (t) 20:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so 'mainstream' for you is essentially a test of topics covered by a potential source? Dumuzid (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, to avoid confusion (which is my fault) let's avoid getting too far away from the accepted term for mainstream media which generally encompasses the large media sources like NYTimes, WaPost, etc., which by this would put Spiked as an alternative source. Spiked would fall into the non-gaming press, which along with the mainstream media (this exact definition) are better sources to help bring the situation to broader readership and thus more appropriate for the encyclopedia. So to reclarify: Spiked is a non-gaming source but also not part of "mainstream media", but that does not invalidate it as a reliable source for alternate opinions to the predominant opinion that most mainstream media and some other alternate non-gaming and most reliable gaming outlets share on GG's intent/purpose. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

When you write "Nope, can't accept that[...]" as a flat response to this every time people point out the fringe-ness of your viewpoint, then reiterate your past points that have been shut down again and again, all I can see is "I didn't hear that". PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Several others editors have pointed out the situation with this article that suffers from the entrenched views of a few; it is not just me. I've listened to all the arguments presented, and as others have pointed out, there is no compelling case under WP neutrality policy to accept that "GG is about harassment" as fact. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

RS. Find it. Then edit with it. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an RS for opinions as best as I can tell. Plenty of other RSes have been presented for similar reliability of opionions, as well as showing that the existing RSes like NYTimes and WaPost do not actually state things like "GG is only about harassment" either as opinions or as fact. But attempts to use these appropriate are nearly always argued away by some editors. --MASEM (t) 03:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Masem here, and frankly I'm reading the above and noticing that the statements of several editors are boiling down to "this isn't saying what I want the article to". The same people arguing to systematically remove any source that does not paint this subject as a harassment movement should not be turning around and shouting that a mainstream source saying such is "fringe". It has become increasingly apparent that several editors have made up their minds on what the article should say, and frankly I do feel additional arbitration may be needed. Because as this carries on it does seem we have a valid case for multiple editors trying to enforce ownership of the article, and not making any attempts to hide that their personal feelings on this subject may be affecting their neutrality towards developing an encyclopedic article on the matter.

I really do want to assume good faith here, but I think some of the editors need to look at this thread and ask themselves if the article was instead slamming Gamergate, would you be fighting so fiercely against its inclusion?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely unusable, due to the WP:FRINGE reasons mentioned above, also well below the threshold of quality for sources that has been argued for elsewhere in the article. Artw (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

FRINGE cannot apply to the idea of stating other opinions of what the GG movement might be given that there's little actual evidence of what it really is (in contrast to the flat earth theory where piles of evidence exist otherwise), and that the statement that "GG is a harassment movement" is clearly controversial. ("The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article." per FRINGE). And per the RFC from early on this article, we are allowed to use less-than-perfect RSes to overcome systematic biases in the media to stay neutral and objective. --MASEM (t) 05:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It is absolutely untrue that there is anything controversial in calling GamerGateva harrasment movement since that is how it is consistently described by reliable sources. also is there really an RFC that comes to that conclusion? Show me. Artw (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall any such RFC succeeding; and if so, consensus can change. I would definitely assert that there is a clear consensus here against using "less than perfect RSes" like that today. Deliberately using poor-quality sources simply to "balance" a view unequivocally goes against WP:VALID and WP:NPOV. --Aquillion (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not consistently reported that way in sources; there was an analysis of main highly reliable sources a few months ago here that point out that while there is clearly some connection between harassment and the GG movement, and that universally the way the movement behaves is encouraging that harassment, the most reliable sources do not outright make the claim that GG is a harassment movement. Add in that we have RSes that contend that GG is anything but a harassment movement, and that makes the statement "GG is a harassment movement" contentious, and thus under NPOV should only be treated as a claim and that we should be attempting to document the situation by at least giving other opinions some time too so that the reader can actually understand the situation. And the RFC is here [12], which I direct to the closer's statement " Here, the key is UNDUE and NPOV, which may mean we have to use some less reliable sources, but all for the benefit of the article in the longer term." --MASEM (t) 06:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The conclusions of that RFC in no way support your position whatsoever. I'm a bit amazed that you would pass it off as such. Artw (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your other link fails to convince also. Artw (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'liberal-leaning'? Spiked is a libertarian magazine, and as such both right-wing and generally pretty hardline anti-feminist. I don't feel that this opinion piece is particularly noteworthy, given that, in that it's from a relatively obscure author writing for a relatively obscure, non-mainstream source, saying exactly what we would expect an author there would say about anything that they feel touches on feminism or cultural issues. It's normal for a everyone in politics to say "this current controversy is really about my pet issues" about high-profile topics, but without a higher-quality sources backing it up, I think it would be WP:UNDUE to cover it. --Aquillion (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Spiked was born from the ashes of a magazine called Living Marxism, and is run by a self proclaimed Marxist. [13] To describe Spiked as liberal leaning isn't entirely untrue. Brustopher (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I note that Spiked was previously raised at WP:RSN, where it was considered reliable for opinions; but the question of WP:WEIGHT was also raised. Given that this is the Flat Earth article, I would suggest that WP:FRINGE does not apply. On the basis of the number of sources, which are reliable for at least attributed opinions, I would also suggest that it would be WP:UNDUE to exclude these viewpoints entirely. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Another from American Spectator

[14]. Again , a conservative work, and again likely bundled into the same issues above on usability. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that great care would have to be taken with that one. BLP issues abound.— Strongjam (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I tend to refrain from calling sources fringe, but this is a full on conspiracy theory Surrey with the fringe on top. Brustopher (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It is just uncritically regurgitating claims that have been better covered elsewhere, with a really bad analogy and a lot of mistakes. Not worth touching in any way. - Bilby (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not so much what they are saying, but that they are saying something (this and the Spiked article above, for example, do not appear to be op-eds and there's no cautionary language that I can immediately find on either side to distance the views of these authors from the published work itself. One can argue these works, overall, are op-eds by nature, but they still appear to be editorially controlled) Given that the involvement of the mainstream, more-centralist media is part of the GG situation, the aspect of non-centralist papers commenting on the situation is an important point. It's possible to dismiss that they are just latching onto the general attitudes that the GG side has shown, but it's still a separate view from that of the mainstream. This is why it would make sense to have, at most, one paragraph , or even just a sentence, to describe notable persons and works that have spoken in favor of GG (such as Yannipolis/Brietbart, CH Sommers, Young, and these politically-slanted works). We don't need to go into any great detail of what they say (particularly if it goes into BLP claims), but to flatly ignore that there are several voices opining on the situation from otherwise reliable sources for opinions is not an objective approach here. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree with you that it is interesting that these politically-minded sources are, at times, latching onto GamerGate - this is a good example of something that reads as if it was written specifically to appeal to that particular market. But I'm wary of trying to draw any sort of picture from the presence of these articles without a source discussing them. I seem to recall that one of the paper's I'd read had made some mention of the nature of the Yannipolis/Sommers support, so perhaps there was something useful to frame the point there? - Bilby (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Both Yannipolis and Sommers have stated in their own words they support GG, and both were involved in setting up the DC GG meetup. Cathy Young also appears to support GG per her Reason.com piece (and to note that Sommers, Young, and Singal (who is not) are scheduled to be on a Huffington Post piece tonight as I write this, talking about GG). But as to these articles, and related to AirPlay, is the nature of the media's coverage of GG. It is very very unlikely that the mainstream media is going to point to articles from the political ends that are critical of their coverage of the situation. Ideally either something from a neutral party at the AirPlay event, or a work like CRJ, would probably comment on this fact, but I'm pretty confident we'd be holding out for that. To add, do note that the UPI report on the bomb threat mentions the GG believe about the media bias [15]. (This also relates to the airplay section later). --MASEM (t) 16:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I did find this Irish Times blog piece that talks about this while searching for some secondary sources on Airplay. I'm not really familiar with the paper, the author, or exactly how they manage their blog pieces though. — Strongjam (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

We have an obligation to tell all sides to this story. It is wrong to ignore these articles. They should be used to balance out the article for a more NPOV. Chrisrus (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Per the previous [16] at WP:RSN - Every source is reliable for an attributed statement about what it says...; so there are no reliability issues with presenting this type of information as an attributed opinion.
On the questions of WP:DUE; WP:NPOV requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. A number of sources have been provided which reliably verify a range of views on the subject, and it would be improper for the article not to include mention of them. WP:FRINGE does not apply - this is not a matter where there is scientific or academic consensus; and, in any case, this is the Flat Earth article.
Suggest a draft be developed for discussion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Redacted ref?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gamergate_controversy&diff=680846387&oldid=680844250 What does this edit mean? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Just means that the quote is verbatim from the source wasn't censored by Wikipedia. Just a long-winded Sic really. We could just use the {{sic}} template to accomplish the same thing. — Strongjam (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

'Exploited by right wing voices...'

Hey! I was thinking about this sentence- "Commentators such as Jon Stone, Liana Kerzner and Ryan Cooper have said that the controversy is being exploited by right-wing voices and by conservative pundits who had little interest in gaming." Currently, we don't discuss GG figureheads such as Milo Yiannopoulis, Christina H. Sommers or smaller ones like Sargon of Akkad that much. I'm wondering how feasible it is to expand this sentence into its own paragraph or section about the movement's adoption by political figures outside gaming. It seems like we have sufficient sources to support such a move, but I welcome input. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah that doesn't quite work out as well as you might think when you consider Sommers has stated several times she's a liberal, the most recent of which occurred in an interview with Fox News where she corrected the interviewer on her political affiliations. Beyond that suggesting GG is right-wing driven feels like WP:UNDUE and WP:TANGENT.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man, for me, Ms. Sommers' personal identification of her beliefs matter less than how the RSes see her, per WP:PRIMARY. Moreover, her current employment suggests that she holds at least some ideas that the mainstream would consider 'conservative.' I'm not sure there's enough in the RSes for a section as proposed (I don't think so), but I don't see the suggestion as being that "GG is right-wing driven," rather that certain right-wing figures have attached themselves to the hashtag. That might be a slight difference, but I think it's a very important one. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

But this would be the equivalent of gaming websites saying what the inspiration of a game was, the dev saying no, it was this, and then still citing those reliable sources solely to back up a related claim somewhere else. If she's not right-wing, focusing solely on what reliable sources assumed (and to clarify in the Fox News segment, it was an assumption on the interviewer's part) versus what the individual says so it fits a tangential angle on this subject seems to be greatly stretching a point.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree only insofar as it is more like a dev saying 'this is an action game,' the press saying 'it's really more of a strategy game,' and going with the latter. Inspiration is solely within the purview of the inspired, while the classification of our own political beliefs is subject to some objective referents (e.g., if I say I agree with Rush Limbaugh about everything and call myself a left-wing Democrat, people might disagree). I agree the angle is tangential, and again, I don't see enough in the RSes to sustain a section (though I haven't really checked). But what there is seems to identify Ms. Sommers as conservative. If (big if, of course) this proposed section were citable to the New York Times, the BBC, etc., then the fact that Ms. Sommers self-identifies as a liberal would give me no pause. But as it is, I think this is a lot of argument over a few offhand references. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly which part of WP:PRIMARY supports the sentence: "personal identification of her beliefs matter less than how the RSes see her"? A direct quote might be enlightening. In return, I would direct you to WP:SELFPUB which contains the following quote: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". The policy is fairly unambiguous. Further, stating that Ms. Sommers is "right-wing" may run afoul of WP:BLP. Stating that commentators view her as conservative is reasonable, but stating that she is conservative, in spite of her self-published beliefs, is not. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It is sometimes the case that a person may assert things about themselves that the consensus of reliable sources finds to be incomplete, inconsistent, or untrue. In that case, Wikipedia policy holds that the encyclopedia adheres to the weighted evidence of reliable sources. “Right-wing”, when applied to an employee of the American Enterprise Institute, is not a violation of BLP, nor is it incorrect to describe her as a conservative; the preponderance of her writing and her political affiliations are consistent with that characterization, and that conclusion has been widely drawn by reliably sources. That said, it does not appear to me that Sommers’ opinions of Gamergate are consequential to the controversy; as people are looking for opportunities to shorten the article, policy suggests that we might solve this problem by removing Sommers. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy holds that the encyclopedia adheres to the weighted evidence of reliable sources. Which policy? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@ColorOfSuffering: I didn't mean to suggest that Ms. Sommers' self-identification is somehow meaningless. I merely meant to say that "conservative" is a subjective categorization which is not self-controlled. Thus, if someone refers to themselves as a 'liberal,' this is fine to note, but if the RSes unilaterally refer to said person as a 'conservative,' one's own categorization of one's political beliefs does not necessarily control. If I refer to myself as an "outside-the-box, forward-thinking inspirer," it does not mean I am not really a rote, regressive dullard--all subjective categories. I honestly don't know much about Ms. Sommers. I do know that, again, simply for me, Ms. Sommers own view of her political philosophy does not control others' classification of her. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not terribly familiar with Ms. Hoff Sommers' work either, and I would never claim to be an authority on her views (as others here appear to have done). Perhaps this profile from The Telegraph might help, as it also explains her role with regards to GamerGate. Certainly her views are many-faceted and defy simple classification. The way I see it, Christina Hoff Sommers is the best authority on all things Christina Hoff Sommers, and I'm perplexed as to how you could believe otherwise. If you think you are one thing (an outside-the-box, forward-thinking inspirer), and someone else thinks you're the opposite (a rote, regressive dullard) then we can't just state that you are a regressive dullard. Only that certain people believe you are. Do you see the difference? That's basic BLP stuff. Use the example of Uri Geller. He calls himself an illusionist and psychic who possesses paranormal powers. Most sources (including the New York Times) label him a fraud. His "powers" have been unilaterally debunked by nearly every reliable source that has covered him. But in what universe do you think it's acceptable to label him explicitly and solely as a debunked fraud?

Much has been written and speculated about the views of Ms. Hoff Sommers. If we don't trust her own writing, we are essentially calling her duplicitous, which is libel unless you can locate a high-quality source that elucidates that point. I'm curious which policy you believe gives us the authority to state that she's not what she says she is, because it sounds suspiciously like gas-lighting to me. You mentioned WP:PRIMARY, but you failed to point out exactly how that policy applies. Do you care to clarify your point further? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

My point with regard to WP:PRIMARY was simply that primary sources are to be used with care, and generally, secondary sources are preferred. My broader point was simply that some categories are subjective, and therefore self-identification is not necessarily controlling. I am in no way calling Ms. Sommers duplicitous; I am saying that this particular categorization is largely dependent upon the observer. Given your take on things, apparently, if I were to declare myself "the most creative man in the western world" and "the leading light of my generation," it would be a BLP issue to suggest that I may not have an accurate view of myself. Ms. Sommers is absolutely to be trusted, so far as I know. But that does not mean her own subjective qualitative assessments of herself outweigh others'. There is a big difference between one stating facts about one's self and one's appraisal of one's position on a spectrum involving other people (e.g., political ideology). Or at least that's how I see it. You obviously think me wrong, and that's fine. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

We are not just talking about a slight difference in subjective opinion. We're talking about polar opposites. Liberal is the opposite of conservative. Democrat is the opposite of republican. Right-wing is the opposite of left-wing. And so on. To use your example, if you were to declare yourself "the most creative man in the western world" and "the leading light of my generation," and instead I decided to only call you "the least creative man in the western world" and "a depressingly dim bulb who is a discredit to every generation" because every journalist at The Guardian, Slate, and Mary Sue called you that, I'd be in troubled BLP waters. I'd never do that, of course, because I sincerely like you and I truly value your contributions on this page and I believe you to be both impartial and open-minded (that's a sincere compliment, for those who are watching). Were I to try to tackle your analogy using my own terrible prose, I'd write it thusly: "Wikipedia editor Dumuzid is the self-proclaimed leading light of his generation, though most commentators agree that he is, in fact, the dimmest darkness of all generations." Or if you prefer, "Wikipedia editor Dumuzid is known as the dimmest darkness of all generations, though he maintains that not only is he the leading light of his generation, he also claims to be the most creative man in the western world." Lastly, I wouldn't say you're wrong here -- this is a discussion page, not a courtroom, so I can't deal in right/wrong. I'll just say that I disagree with your interpretation. It's equally possible, if not downright likely that I'm the one who is wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

We've gone quite far afield here, especially considering that I don't think this should be in the article! Thank you for the compliment. Yes, liberal and conservative are opposites, but they're rather notional opposites, and highly contextual. If I may use a U.S. example, a Massachusetts conservative might be a Texas liberal. Moreover, someone who is generally agreed to follow an ideological line might depart on a certain topic or topics. I would certainly never oppose noting someone's view of his or herself. My narrow point (if I remember it correctly!) was merely that having a quote from someone saying "I'm a liberal" would not categorically exclude them from being a 'right wing voice' in some contexts, or on some topics. Either way, I still vote that we continue the trend toward parsimony and leave all of this out. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's dial things back a bit and not throw around terms like libel, keeping in mind Wikipedia:No legal threats. There's no reason to escalate this discussion in this manner. Let's stick to discussing what the sources say. Gamaliel (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, Gamaliel? Have you read WP:No Legal Threats, or did you just see the word "libel" and assume it was a threat of some kind? Do me a favor and read the policy you posted. I will quote the relevant section titled What is not a legal threat: A discussion of whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. You are an administrator. I would expect you to be more familiar with these concepts. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

We also expect users to be familiar with the policy WP:CIVIL. When discussions get heated, it's a good idea to take a break from that discussion for a bit to avoid violating that policy by, say, throwing around accusations or implications that other editors are engaging in libel. If you have any questions about that policy you are welcome to visit my personal talk page. Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That categorisation of person on a political spectrum is subjective is clear, and (it appears) agreed. WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. and WP:NPOV@WP:ASSERT When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. are also clear - subjective "opinions" must be attributed. WP:BLP means that this is even more important.
Suggest that the issue can be resolved by documenting the stated opinion of the commentators making the "Exploited by right wing voices..." assertions, attributed; if this angle is considered due.
Also suggest that we should include the stated opinions of the subjects (Milo Yiannopoulos, CH Sommers, et al) on the GamerGate controversy - it is WP:UNDUE to the point of WP:POV to not have included a neutrally voiced, attributed, documentation of these pro-GamerGate voices in the article. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

For me, I don't think this particular tangent merits expansion at the moment, either as to "co-opting" or the opinions of these allegedly Gamergate-sympathetic commentators. I still think streamlining is a good watchword. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Possibly all the right wing demagogues latching on to GamerGate should get their own "Culture War" section? Artw (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Might be something usable from this:

• Chituc, Vlad (September 11, 2015). "Gamergate: A Culture War for People Who Don't Play Videogames". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583.

Notably I think it goes with a bit more nuanced view then "Right-wing", and it does talk about the Airplay event as well. — Strongjam (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)]

Good article, thank you. The placing of gamergate in a wider cultural context is useful, but the commentators appear, to my eye, basically to bolster the point that "it's not really about games." I'm still not sure we need anything more than we have. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The politics have been there from the outset and it's very similar to the "Hate, Rape and Rap"[17] campaign especially in terms of the players. Rappers and Gamers are similar in their political demographics. Tipper Gore and Sarkeesian appear to be arguing from the same place politically. Gamers (and rappers) are not "right wing" and generally support progressive ideals (I think one of our sources breaks down gamer identity demographics). Sommers is libertarian or a classical liberal (that's not right-wing). Conservatives ultimately could care less about who wins and rail against both political correctness and video game violence. “Cultural libertarianism” vs. “cultural authoritarians” is an excellent summary of both campaigns though they are 20 years apart. --DHeyward (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ethics concerns in lead

At the moment, the lead makes mention of Gamergate "opposing social criticism in video game reviews" and goes on to say that this is the result of collusion between various parties. However, in the body of the article, when we discuss ethics, most people are talking about a different issue, where Gamergate is opposing what they see as perceived conflicts of interest between developers and journalists. That's a separate issue. Gamergate is concerned with fighting social criticism, and it is true that some justify this in terms of arguing a grand conspiracy between journalists and feminists, which, they say, creates ethical problems. However, Gamergate is also concerned with showing conflicts of interest which are unrelated to the social criticism side. I'd like to change the lead to mention both, as at the moment it is unbalanced. I'm proposing changing it to:

"Some of the people using the Gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism through highlighting perceived conflicts of interest between journalists and developers and opposing social criticism in video game reviews, which they say is the result of collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics."

I want to highlight that these are perceived conflicts of interest, because much of what has been highlighted were not actual conflicts of interest. But I think it is important to note both sides of their approach. - Bilby (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the proposal. Do you have some reliable sources to cite for the proposition? I'd appreciate seeing them. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:LEAD@WP:LEADCITE and here. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Ryk72, it's been a long day. Could you be more explicit about what you're trying to say? I'd be grateful. Dumuzid (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The lead summarises the article. Per WP:LEADCITE citations are not required for the lead. The assertion is already in the article at the section here; where it is sourced & cited. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

So long as we follow up with something akin to "these purported concerns have been rejected by media critics and commentators as ill-founded and unsupported," that seems reasonable to me. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned below (and in my initial revert), that section does not currently support the proposed addition to the lead. It says that that the focus on conflicts of interest are used as evidence of that progressive social issues are a result of collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics -- that they're being highlighted, in other words, as an example of the collusion that the lead already covers in its summary -- so per WP:LEAD we can't imply that it's a separate thing. --Aquillion (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you point to the parts of the article body you believe your addition summarizes? The section on ethics summarizes the sources as follows: "...arguing that the close relationships between journalists and developers are creating conflicts of interest, and argue that these relationships provide evidence of an unethical conspiracy among reviewers to focus on progressive social issues." That's the only mention of conflicts of interest as a focal point of the controversy, and it makes it explicit that they are cited purely as evidence of collusion, as part of one argument rather than as a separate "side" -- as evidence of the alleged unethical conspiracy to advance a progressive agenda. The lead currently covers that, as far as I can tell. I don't think there are significant sources supporting the idea that there is a focus on conflicts of interest distinct from the belief that it is a form of collusion being used to advance progressive social issues; that is to say, according to the sources that have gone into it in depth, the ethics concerns advanced by Gamergates' supporters are solely about a single core allegation of collusion among journalists and developers as part of a conspiracy to advance progressive social issues, with all other points merely serving as evidence and data-points that they believe support that thesis. I would strongly oppose any wording in the lead that could be interpreted to mean that these are different things, since that's not remotely implied by any part of the current article, nor (I believe) is it particularly supported by the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

We've been handling that whole ethics section badly. What we should be doing is outlining the Gamergate stance and then covering criticism, What we do instead is outline the criticism, with almost no mention of the stance. However, the Alexander reference in Time, which leads the criticism, is specifically about the conflicts of interest between developers and journalists, and a lot of the criticism that we're quoting is about - or makes mention of - the conflicts of interest between the two. It is mentioned in The Guardian, Vox [18] [19], Alexander in Time, and referred to as the corruption issue in Internet Monitor. If nothing else, that's where the "ethics" side of this started - claims (proven false) that there was a conflict of interest between a developer and journalist when he was writing. That Gamergate is largely about opposing social criticism is a given. However, that it has also had a component arguing against close relationships between journalists and developers should also be clear. - Bilby (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is very little GamerGate stance to cover - just some vague words about "Ethics in Games Journalism" and then a complete absense of anything following it up or any concrete concerns. Critisism gets more coverage because it's actually substantial. Artw (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There have been concrete concerns. Most have been marginal at best, but certainly Gamergate has raised a number of specific issues related to conflicts of interest between developers and journalists. Personally, I feel the vast majority are nothing, and even those which aren't are overstated, but the concerns have been raised. - Bilby (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I've yet to see this demonstrated anywhere. At best actual concerns about games journalism have been projected onto GamerGate, but they've yet to show any interest themselves. Artw (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• (ec) We have to respect WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE weight; giving equal validity to all sides in a controversy is a violation of WP:VALID. If a concern is marginal, amounts to nothing, and has the coverage you'd expect from something that amounts to nothing, then we can't really give it any focus; we have to focus on the consensus of reliable sources instead, which means that, for the most part, it is entirely appropriate for the section on ethics to have one or two sentences saying that some people have said it is about ethics and alleged unethical progressive conspiracies, then focus primarily on the near-universal dismissal among reliable sources. (This is especially true when some of the accusations are against specific people, of course, at which point including them in detail immediately runs into WP:BLP issues unless we have good sources substantiating them and illustrating that the weight you're suggesting giving them is appropriate.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well, yes, except this is more tricky than many other situations. It is so because of the sheer amount of outrage displayed by those who claim to have been targeted in various ways, their hangers-on, sympathisers and numerous talking heads who espouse certain causes at every imaginable opportunity. There is basically a very visible, media-savvy etc opposition and a much less visible "other side". It is possible to over-egg a pudding: eggs are needed as much as sugar and the like but too many eggs produces a mess. Which is what this article has been almost from Day One. It needs cutting down dramatically. - Sitush (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think you're right (it's pretty clear from the sources that the raw outrage and emotion here is mostly coming from the people who pushed the hashtag into the limelight -- again, look at Heron, Belford, and Goker's discussion of the chat logs, it makes it pretty clear that the initial 'core' of Gamergate was driven by emotional outrage, that they used all sorts of detailed, carefully-planned techniques to manipulate the media, and so on.) But either way, we can't relax our WP:RS or WP:NPOV policies based on your personal belief that the media is getting it wrong; it violates NPOV to give equal validity to all sides in a conflict, and it violates WP:RS and WP:UNDUE to give additional weight to marginal or less reliable sources, regardless of the reason. As it is now, this article fairly accurately reflects the consensus of the mainstream media, with weight appropriate to how things are covered there; that's our goal to shoot for as an encyclopedia. --Aquillion (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, it mostly reflects a lot of op-eds by people with political agendas and axes to grind. It is bollocks, basically. - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a specific edit to suggest? Not a general complaint, but a specific edit? Otherwise, it looks like you're soapboxing. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, though -- read those sources more carefully. They're not just saying that there were allegations of generic, unspecified 'corruption', they're saying that the initial accusations in Gamergate were, specifically, that there was a conspiracy to push for a focus on progressive social issues. Eg from the Guardian, summarizing the ethics issues, concludes: "Its supporters call their enemies “social justice warriors” and worry that they will usher in a new age where the latest Call of Duty won’t let you shoot nameless baddies - but instead ask you to talk about your feelings." The whole point of the ethics accusations is the belief that there is a conspiracy using unethical methods to advance a political agenda that would change the face of gaming; the culture-war and ethics-attack aspects are not separate. (The coverage of early Gamergate IRC channels makes this even more clear, since it quotes early members specifically discussing how to divide up ethics, anti-feminism, and harassment as part of a goal of ultimately crushing Quinn and defeating their ideological opponents.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There are two issues. What are they claiming, and how people are interpreting those claims. The what (in regard to ethics) is primarily about collusion between journalists (GameJournoPros), conflicts of interest between developers and journalists, and the pushing of a political agenda (social justice/feminism). The interpretation is that the first two are mostly covers for the third. I have no problem with a heavy focus on the interpretation. But we also need to clearly state what it is that we are interpreting. We're doing fine on the first half, and very poorly on the second.

The culture war aspects and ethics are separate things. You are welcome to argue that they are closely tied together, but in describing them we still need to fully describe each. - Bilby (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The question here is whether the purported ethics concerns are actually ethics concerns, or simply a publicity stunt or public relations ruse. My local diner might call its fried chicken "world famous", but Wikipedia would want confirmation of that fame in the consensus of reliable sources. Here, the consensus of reliable sources holds that the chicken is not famous, or is only famous because people say it’s famous chicken when it's not particularly famous and probably also not chicken. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's even a matter of "are they real concerns"; while I don't like dividing sources rigidly into sides, to the extent that there is a division, most sources on both sides describe the ethics issues as a fusillade in the culture war, based on the belief among people pushing the hashtag that their ideological enemies have formed an conspiracy to advance a progressive (or, if you prefer, "social justice") agenda through unethical collusion and by exploiting conflicts of interest. Some sources have mentioned that there are other aspects involved in the periphery, but the core of Gamergate's allegations, to the extent that anyone has been able to cover them in depth and go into detail on it, is entirely about cultural warfare. By "ethics", all sources that go into depth on the concerns and passions behind Gamergate explicitly state that they mean that one side in the culture wars is acting unethically, and we need to report that -- we can't cover it as though they're making unrelated, culturally-neutral ethics allegations, because that's not what the sources that have gone into depth on it say. I also think that -- while we have to rely on the sources that have covered it -- ultimately this part is uncontroversial. All of the op-eds that people say "support" Gamergate have called it a culture war and have tied the ethics concerns directly to the culture war. If you drop into KIA or wherever, most people there will aggressively insist that the ethics concerns and their culture war are interconnected. The idea that they're different things just isn't well-reflected in any sources, because it flatly isn't true. Gamergate is about a culture-war and a belief that one side in the culture war is behaving unethically; there are no significant ethics allegations involved that aren't part of that culture war. Some aspects of the article are controversial, but I honestly don't think that this one is. --Aquillion (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

We're still caught up in the interpretations. The issue is that we need to be very clear that their ethics concerns are related primarily to conflicts of interest. We're welcome to then explain that they are part of a culture war. What we're missing is that statement of what they are, rather than how they're interpreted. At any rate, I'll work on something and see were it goes. - Bilby (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that the sources support the idea that their ethics concerns are primarily related to conflicts of interest. The overarching agreement among sources (as far as their is one) seems to be that their ethics concerns are primarily related to their belief that there is a conspiracy among journalists to push a progressive agenda. For example, the ethics section says that "As evidence of this, they point to what they consider as disproportionate praise that video game journalism has given broadly towards recent games such as Depression Quest and Gone Home, which offer little conventional gameplay or skill to complete and relating a story with current social implications, while traditional AAA titles are downplayed and eschewed." Likewise, the backlash against articles celebrating diversity in the game industry, the focus on Sarkeesian and Wu, the attacks on DIGRA and so on, and even GameJournoPros -- none of those accuse anyone of any conflicts of interest; rather, they allege collusion among journalists to advance a progressive agenda. Sometimes this collusion can be described as a conflict of interest, but the overarching coverage focuses on their opposition to what they believe is a progressive media conspiracy, not on opposing conflicts of interest in a general sense. --Aquillion (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me that's a largely artificial distinction. Collusion to promote friends, acquaintances, or romantic partners is indeed a conflict of interest, but so is putting ideology ahead of facts or objectivity. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If opinionated or even partisan reviewing represents a conflict of interest, some of Gamergate’s poster-children for unethical journalism necessarily include Oscar Wilde, George Bernard Shaw, James Agee, Evelyn Waugh, and Gore Vidal. Those are mighty big windmills, and it's hard to see how threatening Brianna Wu or Anita Sarkeesian assists a crusade against James Agee. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant, almost to the point of being a strawman. None of those people wrote about Gamergate (obviously). - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

A net so wide it might capture even you. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, stop trolling. I'm no journalist. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

My that's not very WP:CIVIL. But it does demonstrate the point (and that you understand the point), that too wide a net and you end up including people who should not be included in various aspersions, and you end up talking about stuff that does not belong in the GGC entry for reasons related to relevancy, UNDUE, and FRINGE. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You got RS to back up those claims? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky: Are you asking me to back up those claims, or is the indentation scrambled? Sorry! I'm happy to do a short paragraph or two on politics and polemic in criticism in the late 19th and early 20th century, but I’d have thought the point was fairly clear. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: that was meant for somewhere else. Not sure how I managed to place it here. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mark, thanks as always for your input. I'm having a hard time finding the parts of your latest comment that are relevant to the article topic. None of the people you named have been involved in the controversy and in fact I believe most if not all of them were dead before it arose. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

No, none of the people of whom I wrote were supporters of Gamergate, but all were unabashedly opinionated cultural critics. If polemic or partisan criticism represents a "conflict of interest", as -Starke Hathaway seemed to indicate, then all the above are certainly implicated far more extensively than anyone who writes about video games. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, none of the people you named are in any way relevant to this article. In the future, do you think you could restrict your commentary to things that are relevant? This can be a heated topic and I'm sure we'd all like to keep the signal to noise ratio as high as practicable. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, -Starke Hathaway appeared to argue above that polemical or partisan reviews were conflicts of interest. I responded with a short list of incredibly famous and influential reviewers -- Shaw and Wilde in theater, Agee in film -- who most people would agree were also polemical or partisan, and whom no one ever considered to be unethical. -Starke Hathaway believes this is all irrelevant and reminds me that this is a heated topic: filed for the next time I'm dragged unreasonably to AE and accused (again) of making a personal attack or failing to assume bad faith or whatever Gamergate’s supporters decide might be to their advantage. Let’s hat this (otherwise) fruitless discussion. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "fruitless" is a very good description for baseless speculation about what Gamergate supporters should think about a bunch of mostly novelists who (a) are dead, (b) never wrote about video games, and (c) are wholly unrelated to the article. If you have something to say about the article let's by all means discuss. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Starke Hathway, I would say that counter-examples to your proffered view of conflict of interest are, by definition, no less (or more) relevant than your initial assertion. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, this part of the digression is a bit off-topic. The key point (as, I feel, most of the sources that go into depth on the issue attest) is that all of the ethical issues Gamergate have focused on are part of a core allegation of collusion to advance social criticism in games, art-games, and so on. All the other points (the exact nature of the connections and collusion they're accusing people of, the accusations of putting ideology ahead of facts and objectivity, etc) are a part of this core thesis. They're things the hashtag's users have presented as subsidiary evidence for their core allegation, and therefore do not belong in the lead -- covering that central 'unethical conspiracy' thesis that binds Gamergate together is sufficient. Our personal opinions on whether the bits and pieces of that thesis hold up under scrutiny doesn't really matter; our role as an encyclopedia is simply to identify it and note that it has been roundly dismissed by most reliable sources. I feel that the current lead does that effectively. Obviously, since we're talking about a poorly-defined group of people, there may be people inside it who don't buy into the core narrative, or people who want to drag it in different directions or whatever. But I think that to the extent that there is any firm agreement among the sources on what Gamergate means by "ethics", the current lead captures it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have gone in a weird direction. What do people think of the recent rewording of the lede?Brustopher (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fine, yeah.. --Aquillion (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer to be clearer that the "ethics" claims are almost universally seen as a deceptive public relations ploy, and I just fixed a pair of grammatical lapses without, as far as I can see, changing the meaning. I agree with Aquillion that this language is not intolerable. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible ref (9/14/15)

Gotta say I didn't expect an article like this being made but The Verge posted out a rather interesting article today: How Gamergate's earliest target came to empathize with her abusers. Basically Zoe Quinn talking about GamerGate at the XOXO Festival. GamerPro64 22:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Digression that belongs at WP:RSN ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And what the heck is The Verge? How many more minor sources are we going to namecheck? We all know that, for example, feminist studies is a well-established walled garden in certain parts of the US but it has nothing comparable outside that country and perhaps not even outside certain areas within it. I've no idea whether The Verge is for/against/indifferent when it comes to issues such as this but, really, let's stick to mainstream stuff. We really are going down a rabbit-hole here. - Sitush (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC) The Verge is Vox Media's technology website. Their first considering their buyout of Re/code earlier this year. Their sister websites are Polygon and Vox respectively. All four of these websites are currently used at least once in this article. And yeah. They've all have made articles against this whole thing. With Polygon covering both bomb threats towards GamerGate supporter events. GamerPro64 23:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Thanks. Can I just remind people that the existence of an article on Wikipedia for a putative source is no guarantee of reliability or indeed anything else. We have article on James Tod, Koenraad Elst and David Irving but no-one in their right mind would consider those sources to be acceptable as anything other than an opinion ... and opinions, as I have said before here, are one of the major problems with this article. The sooner this thing is purged, the better. - Sitush (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Well the Polygon references stay because the Video Game WikiProject considers them reliable. And that goes with The Verge as well unless someone else objects. Vox the website has Ezra Klein as its founder so make that what you will. And Re/code is pretty much AllThingsD minus The Wall Street Journal. I have heard people comparing Vox Media to Condé Nast, though. But I will agree. We should remove a lot of opinion pieces being used in this article. GamerPro64 23:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Local (project) consensus does not over-ride general community consensus. Nor is it the case that just because an author or publisher is generally thought to be reliable then thus everything they produce is so. The latter point is fundamental to anyone who frequents WP:RSN. - Sitush (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Well the VG Sources has been shown to have influence. An example of this being on consensus with The Mary Sue. GamerPro64 23:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC) And The Mary Sue is another source that I'd never heard of before coming to this article. Perhaps I am a cloistered Brit, perhaps I am just generally ignorant but, really, we should be doing much better than this. The entire subject matter originates from something that should have failed on the grounds of NOTNEWS. No-one gives a crap except the involved parties and the agenda pushers. The world has not changed. - Sitush (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Can we collapse this boring derail? These are matters that have been gone over many times. Artw (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC) I'm strongly in favor of trimming out all the opinion and focusing on facts from sources like the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. —Torchiest talkedits 00:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

So... About the article? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

A specific edit proposal would be nice (or if someone just wants to be WP:BOLD and do one,) but I'm not seeing a good place for this at the moment. Maybe more useful for Quinn's biography or the Cash Override article. — Strongjam (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It's kind of like another phase of GG has started. It's kind of a "lessons learned" things. I don't see a place to put it yet. Perhaps with the comment atry from Peter Moore. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The New Republic

[20] Gamergate: A Culture War for People Who Don't Play Videogames (Vlad Chituc).

A recent post at Breitbart, however, helps to explain GamerGate’s appeal: It’s an accessible front for a new kind of culture warrior to push back against the perceived authoritarianism of the social-justice left.

A good refutation of Allum Bokhari's latest Breitbart. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like yet another niche source to me. Bin it. If stuff isn't covered by major sources of repute, it isn't worth mentioning because we'll be drifting into the realms of those sources that are fringe, advocacy and similar. I have heard of New Republic but, well, I've heard of Breitbart also and neither are worthy. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that I have linked to the article above in the #'Exploited by right wing voices...' section (I hope I get that anchor right.) Definitely a biased source though. — Strongjam (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

"A biased source" in what way? I'm not quite sure what you mean. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Just mean that it's been pretty openly left-leaning political magazine for the past 100 years or so. If we are going to use it we should be mindful of that. — Strongjam (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

While as a politics nerd I might quibble with some periods in that century, point taken. Thanks for the elucidation. Dumuzid (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem with magazines such as TNR, New Statesman and Spectator is that they exist merely to preach to the converted. As more often than not does The Guardian. They give voices to people who often would otherwise be addressing an empty room. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:BIASED "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Points of view are the topic here. We've got one thing that's too far right, one that's too far left? This is like the blind men and the elephant. There's no gold standard source here. Taken together, Breitbart and New Statesman do better at showing the shape of the controversy over the last 6 months than anything else I've seen. Rhoark (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, um no. Probably best not to compare things that haven't been banned from use as a RS to Breitbart. Artw (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart's uses are limited, but that's a far cry from "banned from use". The question of whether Breitbart is reliable for its own opinion was hashed out in detail last year. It obviously is, though in 2014 it was undue. That was before Breitbart journalists were among those elected as representatives for Gamergate and other sources were commenting on it. That makes it due, and you don't even have to use Breitbart as a source for its own opinion. Rhoark (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Blythwood's recent additions

@Blythwood: I'd like to start by acknowledging that there's nothing more annoying that trying to edit an article you haven't touched before and finding every single change you made reverted. But this does not change the fact that most of you recent additions to the article are all WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. You are using sources that do not mention Gamergate. We should mention this stuff in the gamergate article, unless somebody links them to gamergate. If none of the sources link issues such as booth babes to gamergate, this is just you concluding that the two are related and linking them based on your opinions. This stuff belongs in the article on sexism in videogames, not the gamergate article.Brustopher (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The smartphone game section in particular strikes me as going pretty far off topic -- this article isn't the place to analyze the exact reasons behind changing demographics. The bit about conferences might be a bit more useful in terms of background, since they discuss rising gender-issue tensions in the community leading up to this, but really, the article is already hugely long, and these additions are just going into extra detail on stuff that's already covered. There's nothing wrong with them beyond that that I can see, but I don't think they belong here given how wordy and complicated the article is already. --Aquillion (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Blythwood: I removed another of your edits. I think a shorter addition might be worth adding, but that edit really belongs as part of Sexism in video gaming. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The litmus test should not be whether a source mentions the topic by name, but by whether it is useful to the reader in understanding the topic. Sources establish that gender representation or the changing dynamics of it are important to Gamergate, so it's not improper to include a limited amount of information in WP:SUMMARY style. Rhoark (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Name changing

Personally, I think there should be some kind of sanction or restriction that prevents any name change proposal for this article and the Gamergate article. I am very confident that consensus has been reached to NOT change any names, and so editors should realise this and not to revive any discussion to try and change the names. Burklemore1 (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a controversial enough issue to bother getting a moratorium. There's only been around 3 move requests to my knowledge and one of them was started by someone trying to troll the article. You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. Brustopher (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll be glad to impose a restriction if there's an actual issue that's causing disruption, but it doesn't appear to be a serious problem. When was the last request? Gamaliel (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe the most recent attempt to move the article was on 30 August, 19 days ago. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Here was the conversation.[21] I wasn't aware of that one, but we've had quite a few more it seems over time. Things seem quiet over at the ant article now , but I'm split on doing anything more proactively. We could put a talk page notification here showing consensus not to propose another article move in the near future, but WP:BEANS also comes to mind. If it were a few months ago when we had proposals almost every week it seemed, I think an editing restriction would have been very valid like Gamaliel mentioned, but I think we're at enough of a lull at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

While it isn't a serious issue as of now, I think it's best to be cautious when another discussion emerges and still consider my option in the future. It should be thoroughly clear that consensus has been reached and editors will be wasting their time. Brustopher, I do believe it can be problematic when consensus has clearly been reached and editors simply ignore this decision; they're pretty much reviving a dead issue. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm opposed to a blanket sanction for these kinds of discussions because consensus can change. But I fully agree that at present there is a sound guideline-based consensus not to rename this article "Gamergate" nor to disambiguate "Gamergate" to "Gamergate (ant)". I also see current consensus to keep this article as "Gamergate controversy" (although I must confess that I don't know the specifics regarding why it was changed from the CamelCase term "GamerGate" in the first place). I agree with the sentiments above: if this persists and becomes disruptive then I would consider adding an explanation to the FAQ. Otherwise it's probably best to avoid the BEANS. -Thibbs (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

However many attempts we have to ram through a rename on the backs of zombie and brigaded accounts -- seven? Eight? In the past year? -- it's somehow not disruptive enough.14:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Only four that I'm aware of (i.e. that were listed at Talk:Gamergate). All four proposals were from different accounts. Mildly tiresome, perhaps, but I don't consider that to be overly disruptive. As the GamerGate furor dies down these requests are sure to die down as well. But look, if this seems too disruptive for any of the regulars at this page then by all means you should draft an FAQ note to point new editors to the discussions where consensus emerged. That should save you some headaches. -Thibbs (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it comes up often enough to matter (and as repetitive discussions go, it rarely lasts long or takes up much time.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Describing points of view & Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources

The intention of making GamerGate look like a terrorist organization similar to ISIS dedicated to scaring women out of working in games which dominates the opening paragraphs is clearly not treating the controversy as a controversy. Because that's not controversial. It's universally condemned. Why does the title say, "Gamergate controversy" when there's no controversy? Shouldn't it say, "Gamergate (sexist terrorism)"? --BenMcLean (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: how long has is been since this was discussed at length? Three weeks? Four? Does "consensus can change" mean everyone can re-raise every settled question every month, or is that reserved for Gamergate extremists? Can someone lease hat this promptly?MarkBernstein (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 19 September 2015

WP:POINT violation. Do not un-hat again. There is now a restriction on page move requests on this article for the next six months. Gamaliel (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{requested move/dated|Gamergate (sexist terrorism)}} Gamergate controversy → Gamergate (sexist terrorism) – This would better match the actual content of the article, especially it's opening paragraphs. Sexist terrorism isn't a controversy as all reliable sources would condemn sexist terrorism. A controversy implies at least two sides engaged in rational argument. BenMcLean (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC) I am now going to support my argument from Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title. This is justified on the grounds of precision. It is important to be able to tell Gamergate, the sexist terrorist criminal entity, apart from an actual controversy. --BenMcLean (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC) Aha, that's two move discussions in two days, bringing the mean down from 19 days to 10 days. Also, please note the proposer's contribution history. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC) There is controversy on the talk page. Why isn't there controversy in the article? --BenMcLean (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC) WP:POINT? User:Gamaliel, can you explain the point that I am making? Your citing this seems to indicate your awareness that I have a point to make. --BenMcLean (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC) Earlier I accused other editors of intellectual dishonesty, but deleted that paragraph when my entire comment was getting censored because of it. The admin who censored it, during the arbitration dispute, described dissenting editors, "who desperately want him sanctioned so they can add Mark Bernstein to their collection of Gamergate trophies and parade his severed head on a pike through the boards of 8Chan." [22] Because accusing other editors of intellectual dishonesty is uncivil. But saying they want to behead people is perfectly civil. --BenMcLean (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2015

Page move requests prohibited until March 2016. Gamaliel (talk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
14:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)} {{requested move/dated|GamerGate}} Gamergate controversy → GamerGate – This was the original name for the article, and I don't understand why it has been moved to "Gamergate controversy" at the first place. Discussion at WP:AT has resulted in consensus that shows WP:DIFFCAPS is sufficient for disambiguation. This page move also avoids the use of the word "controversy", which may be considered non-neutral. sstflyer 14:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

GG in RS

http://www.thestar.com/sports/2015/09/21/fifa-16-welcomes-some-womens-soccer-players-ncaa-excludes-others.html

Just commenting that the way GG is being viewed in broadly viewed RS might be transitioning towards a harsher view: "After last’s summer’s Gamergate, a disgusting movement that harassed women in gaming whose biggest sin was advocating for more inclusion and representation in video games that is still rolling on, it’s good to see the gaming industry take these steps forward."

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hidden text in the lead

I reverted this edit by SSTflyer. This article has always been a target for tag bombing, and this hidden message can only help avoid that, though of course we'll never known how effective it is. We've discussed sourcing within the lead many times, and the consensus has always been that we don't need to reference sources as long as the body does. If consensus indicates that we remove the hidden text, feel free to undo or ping me and I will gladly do so. Woodroar (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that SSTflyer has also, without discussion, changed the FAQ's explanation that citations are not needed in the lede. On the one hand, this may in fact conform to policy. On the other hand, the long-standing and much-discussed consensus on this page has held that the lede should not have inline citations. The reasons for this are clear. First, if the lede were to have all the citations that editors consider essential, it would be extraordinarily difficult to read, and nearly every noun and verb could eventually require citations. A clean paraphrase of the article, as at present, is more encyclopedic and also more expedient. Further, we have experienced a succession of inexperienced editors and zombie accounts appear here at intervals of 2-3 weeks throughout the past year to insist that the lede must be rewritten with ethics, and their talking point and tactic has often been to issue pointy challenges to language in the lede. Shifting the citation conflicts from the lede, where concision is especially desirable, to the body is again more encyclopedic and also more expedient. I agree that we should Keep the comment, the old FAQ, and continue in our course, which is more encyclopedic and, by avoiding yet another pointless conflict, more expedient. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

TIL that the FAQ is actually a separate page. Interesting. Yeah, any FAQ change like that should be discussed as it runs counter to consensus. Woodroar (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MarkBernstein, please stop casting aspersions re: zombie accounts etc - these repeated attempts to associate various people and sources with various positions that suit your purpose is really irritating and not at all becoming, whether you are a progressive editor or just a plain neutral one (the latter being what we are supposed to be, at least in theory). It is very simple: leads summarise articles and thus citations should not be required in the lead because they should be available in the body. If the lead for this article does not in fact neutrally etc summarise the article then fix that problem. All this stuff is old news and has been a part of MOS for ages. If anyone wants to challenge it then their rationale has to be either (a)_MOS is not policy or (b) there are exceptions for controversial statements. SSTFlyer is applying (b), which seems fine to me. - Sitush (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

One can (and should) be a progressive editor and a neutral editor, just as one can be an educated editor and a neutral editor. I believe you and I are here -- as elsewhere -- substantially in agreement. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

LEADCITE allows for local consensus, which has long been the case. Woodroar (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, sort of. The same applies to all guidelines but, of course, they are not policy and thus are largely meaningless. It doesn't make Bernstein's attitude right: he needs to stop throwing stones and he needs to understand that SSTFlyer has a point. Some frequenters of this particular article , who edit practically nothing else in any depth, need to understand that their knowledge of the history here is not matched by that of other people and indeed that they are contributors to the pedantic mess that this article has become. - Sitush (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

lede ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thor: Maybe for the outside gaming section

http://www.elkharttruth.com/living/Community-Blogs/Commons-Comics/2015/09/21/Review-Thor-The-Goddess-of-Thunder-hammers-out-new-readership-for-mainstream-comics.html

"Jason Aaron’s jabs at the Gamergate controversy have earned him almost as much vitriol as praise for his work on this new Thor."

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Almost No One Sided with #GamerGate: A Research Paper on the Internet’s Reaction to Last Year’s Mob

http://superheroesinracecars.com/2015/08/17/almost-no-one-sided-with-gamergate/

OR or was this published somewhere? I saw it cited, but the citation was not a scholarly format I was familiar with.

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Believe this one was discussed before. It's a self-published source by the looks of it. — Strongjam (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Found the previous discussion in the archives. — Strongjam (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I did a quick scan through the archive and missed it. Thanks. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)