Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Now on cracked.com

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

---

Now on cracked.com: 5 Things I Learned as the Internet's Most Hated Person By Zoe Quinn --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This cracked article has been out for 12 days now and there's been quite a thorough discussion about it. Are you going somewhere with this? Bosstopher (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Cracked articles are unreliable and this story has been out for quite some time. Derpen (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Re: Second paragraph first sentence (The controversy came to wider attention...)

Excerpt in question:

The controversy came to wider attention due to harassment that indie game developer Zoe Quinn received after an ex-boyfriend posted allegations on his blog in August 2014 about her personal life that led others to accuse her of professional impropriety to obtain positive media coverage for her game. Those subsequent allegations were shown to be false[a][...]

[a]Time: "Despite the fact the journalist in question did not ‘review’ the game and wasn't found to have allocated it any particular special treatment...";[8] Washington Post: "The site investigated the alleged ethics breach and concluded there had been no wrongdoing.";[9] Forbes: "....the initial concerns were quickly proven to be all smoke and no fire..."[2]

I notice that [8] is a direct quotation from Leigh Alexander. Doesn't seem appropriate to use a subject of the article as a source without stating the potential COI. The other two don't seem to state "no credibility" without going into any evidence or details. Something doesn't seem right here. --ArmyLine (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Leigh Alexander is not a subject of the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Later, beginning on August 28, 2014, a number of writers published opinion columns which argued for the "end of the gamer identity", citing the growing diversity of gaming and the mainstreaming of the medium, while those associated with GamerGate were stated to be a reactionary force against these changes.[33][43][44][45] As a result, there were concerns that the divide between gaming journalists and the gaming community was deepening, with games writers seen as attacking their own audience.[14][46]

Leigh Alexander was one of the columnists involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmyLine (talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Writing an article that is subsequently cited by this article does not in any sense create a "conflict of interest." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

These straw man ‘game journalism ethics’ conversations people have been having are largely the domain of a prior age, when all we did was negotiate ad deals and review scores and scraped to be called ‘reporters’, because we had the same powerlessness complex as our audience had. Now part of a writer’s job in a creative, human medium is to help curate a creative community and an inclusive culture -- and a lack of commitment to that just looks out-of-step, like a partial compromise with the howling trolls who’ve latched onto ‘ethics’ as the latest flag in their onslaught against evolution and inclusion.

Edit: Oh, and she works for Gamasutra, one of the journalist sites which have been singled out for supposed unethical behavior by GamerGate supporters. So there's the COI.

--ArmyLine (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGaters have a habit of calling any source that they don't like 'biased' or claiming they have a 'COI.' It's a convenient way to 'win' internet arguments (at least in your own mind) but it's not going to fly here. The information being cited isn't a statement of opinion, it's a statement of fact: there was no impropriety. There couldn't have been, because Grayson never reviewed the game. Alexander's article is published in Time, and is a reliable source for factual information like this - that authority is derived from Time, not from Alexander herself, so your opinions on her don't really matter here. We're not going to throw out Alexander just because the gaters don't like her. We simply can't allow GamerGate to render every source they don't like unusable by leveling accusations at the authors. If we did, we would very quickly end up with a glowing account of GamerGate's noble aims to stamp out corruption and evil SJWs in gaming journalism, rather than an unbiased, well sourced article about what members of the movement are actually saying and doing. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Please be calm and civil when you make comments or when you present evidence, and avoid personal attacks. Please be patient as we work toward resolution of the issues in a peaceful, respectful manner.--ArmyLine (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Right back at you. Where did I make a personal attack, please? -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to me to be more interested in attacking one side of the controversy than finding diverse sources and writers. Additionally, I don't think attacking those "gaters" is relevant to the points I raised. I'm trying to be patient and remain on topic so that this discussion can come to a productive conclusion, rather than being closed like the one below. Please return the favor.--ArmyLine (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll counter your accusation with one of my own: you seem to be more interested in attacking me than in addressing my justifications for my position on why Alexander is a reliable source for this article. I'm not 'attacking one side,' I'm saying that we can't use accusations leveled against a writer by GamerGaters to decide whether or not that writer's work is usable as a reliable source in this article. Essentially what I'm saying is that GamerGaters have a COI that leads them to attempt to discredit any media outlet that says things they don't like. We can not allow the movement to dictate what sources can and can not be used in its article. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not an accusation by GamerGaters, it's the fact that she works for a company which is the subject of this article. I'd feel more comfortable if this was stated when she was used as a source. We can agree to disagree on this account, and as we both know who controls the article as it stands right now I will defer to their judgement.--ArmyLine (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't conduct our own research into writers' personal and professional lives and to determine for ourselves who is reliable and who isn't: we trust the reliable sources they write for to do that themselves. Time, an established and respected publication, published her writing on this subject under its masthead. That's enough to allow us to use her article as a reliable source. We're not citing her opinion here, remember: we're citing the facts of the case. That's a very important distinction. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to mention that JournoList has its own Wikipedia page, but it seems like any mention of the GameJournoPros list is labelled "fringe conspiracy theory". I'm curious what the differences are between the two situations that make one an acceptable article and another unacceptable to even discuss.--ArmyLine (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the sources on that page. Can you provide that level of sourcing for this 'controversy?' And what does this have to do with your question about Leigh Alexander as a source for the fact that the accusations that Zoe Quinn received favorable reviews for her game from Nathan Grayson were false? -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Not yet. That doesn't mean that this is a "fringe conspiracy theory", though. It seems like various sources were reporting on JournoList as far back as 2007, though it was not until 2010 that more mainstream sources picked up on it. Branding something as off-topic before enough time has passed for the fallout to be evaluated and a thorough investigation to occur seems premature and, well, biased.--ArmyLine (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You have it precisely backward. We do not include something until sufficient reliable sources have published that something. If and when reliable sources consider the e-mail list thing to be any sort of significant story, we can examine its inclusion. Literally no other mainstream sources have reported anything about it. From that, we can either presume that there's a vast journalistic conspiracy involving almost every single journalist on the planet, or we can presume that other journalists have looked at the e-mails and concluded that there is nothing newsworthy about journalists arguing with each other on an Internet mailing list, and the plain text of the e-mails makes it abundantly clear that the only thing people agreed on was that "harassment is bad and we should not support it." Which is hardly a shocking or corrupt conclusion; indeed, it is the only conclusion that decent human beings can arrive at. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Literally no other mainstream sources have reported anything about it. From that, we can either presume that there's a vast journalistic conspiracy involving almost every single journalist on the planet, or we can presume that other journalists have looked at the e-mails and concluded that there is nothing newsworthy about journalists arguing with each other on an Internet mailing list, and the plain text of the e-mails makes it abundantly clear that the only thing people agreed on was that "harassment is bad and we should not support it."

In short, some of the private thoughts I shared in the wake of Gjoni's blog post crossed the line, and I apologize for airing them. It was an error in judgment.

I want to be clear that none of this affected Ars' other coverage. I don't have any kind of final say about what gets published on Ars Technica, and the two posts that Ars did on the "GamerGate" controversy were separately suggested by Culture Editor Casey Johnston, who had tracked the issue on her own and worked directly on her pieces with senior Ars editors. As noted above, the decision to review Depression Quest had already been made before any controversy had arisen. (Due to my lapse in judgment on this matter, going forward I will refrain from writing about or providing editorial support to any further pieces published on "GamerGate," Quinn, or Depression Quest at Ars.)

This is from Ars Technica. Is this article mainstream enough for inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmyLine (talk • contribs) 01:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

to include what? "The creator of a journalist discussion group apologized for suggesting that journalists should stand up against harassment" or "Gamergaters conspiracy theories of journalistic collusion were proven to be yet another point where they were wrong" ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

to include what? "The creator of a journalist discussion group apologized for suggesting that journalists should stand up against harassment" or "Gamergaters conspiracy theories of journalistic collusion were proven to be yet another point where they were wrong" ?

I couldn't find that in the article, I was thinking of something related to the recusal.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that Time opted to publish a story that they knew was by a person that could be biased in the event, that implies that the story should be taken as a reliable source due to the Time pedigree and not Alexanders, particularly on the factual, unopinionated statement that the specific allegation that Quinn used Grayson to get positive reviews at Kotaku. If it was anything that required more opinion, like listing out the proGG arguments, I'd be caution here, but not for a statement of fact. (And we are in no place to even question the final word from Kotaku, that this didn't happen). --MASEM (t) 05:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

GameJournosPro

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

---

Let's see if you guys are neutral as you say, the email leaks are mentioned now on a reputable source (APGNation, in an interview with the original leaker William Usher http://apgnation.com/archives/2014/09/29/7694/breaking-the-chain-an-interview-with-william-usher

Some nice quotes "Some of the members on that list actively used their platform to support and propagate a wide-sweeping media narrative based on lies and factual inaccuracies." "the leaked e-mails revealed that many of gamers’ suspicions were true" and "a grassroots movement of radicals attempt to infiltrate various forms of media and begin to utilize the platform to control who gets coverage and who doesn’t (as seen with The Fine Young Capitalists) as well as content-shaming developers into censoring their work, is the exact sort of thing that will eventually bring ruin to a lot of creative potentiality within the industry"

I can't believe long standing Wiki editors refuse to include this Loganmac (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Organization Suggestion

First off I love what's happened with the article. It feels it's a lot more neutral, there's little to no 'biased' language now, however, I still think we're not addressing a general structure:

When you come to a GamerGate thread, you want to know WHAT is it. WHY it's happening. HOW it's impacted the industry.

Currently it's: WHAT is it (overview) HOW it's impacted the industry. HOW it's happening.

So here are my suggestions.

We need structure, so here's the format I'm suggesting, as for every argument it should go:

Extended content

////// Background Argument Counter-Argument Results ////// Background (mostly okay right now) GamerGate Campaign (cover origins in reddit, 4chan, etc. and how the Twitter hashtag exploded and what their concerns are, this can HAVE allegations against Quinn contained in it, but only the allegations for now, we NEED to set the stage of the argument FIRST) Major Events: (each is a sub-category) -The Zoe Post (WHAT it is) -Fine Young Capitalists (WHAT it is) -"Gamers are Dead" Posts (WHAT it is) -JournoListPro's (WHAT it is) We need to keep these fact based and neutral. Do not assume guilt. Backlash (HOW it's impacted the industry): (each is a sub-category) -Misogyny Allegations (cover misogyny allegations) -Doxxing and Threats (cover Saarkesian and Quinn, as well as threats towards Pro-GG supporters, Jayd3fox, 10 year old boy getting doxxed, bank accounts leaked, etc.) -Developer Reactions (The Escapist 'anonymous game developer' post shows all three sides (against, pro, neutral), Stardock, Anthony Burch) -Public Figure Reactions (m00t, Christine Sommers, etc.) ////////

Essentially this would now read more like what an argument typically is. Imagine a court case: You have the background of the case, the prosecution goes first, defense goes second, than closing arguments. They DON'T interrupt eachother, they DON'T get personal until the last argument. Look at any other article that has an argument, and it will have that exact format, this avoids misrepresentation of concerns on EITHER side. EvilConker (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"I'm sawry u dont have sourcez 4 that?? u doo?? they r unreliable that means its false."Derpen (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

What? Let's keep this mature. Please. EvilConker (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We can't go that way because we don't reliable sourcing to go in the specifics of everything that happened. We're covering this from the issues level, not the event. Additionally, most of the points made don't have point/counterpoint type discussion that this order would try to point towards. It's because of the disjointed coverage that we have to approach it like this without introducing new bias. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Well then those sections will be short. Here's the thing that's rolling in my head, it's the 'let me tell you what you want' concept. See, you wouldn't use a Republican website to explain what a Democractic movement was thinking, and you wouldn't use Cops statements to explain Ferguson, or the Wall Street journal to describe Occupy Wall Street. So I wouldn't trust Anti-GG to explain why GG people are angry. You offer the accusation, and how those accused have responded. EvilConker (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

But we can't use the majority of sources that are claimed to be the proGG side because they fail reliability. We can't increase the proGG side, all we can do is temper the other side within reason to try to establish what the issues are but without trying to say who is right or wrong. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

All this pro-GG stuff you want to add does not exist in reliable sources. This just comes back to one of the arguments made by Erik Kain in Forbes that the pro-GG crowd wants unbiased coverage, but they praise bias in their favor. It explains why this raticle has been beseiged by editors on both sides. Also Suzanne Somers was Chrissy on Three's Company. Christina Hoff Sommers is an "equality feminist" author who is against "gender feminists" (in her words).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sigh* here we go again: Al Jazeera Tech Crunch (all that's been said has been backed up with evidence)

I mean, what you're not understanding here is DID they say this? Yes they did. That's their argument.EvilConker (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody cares what the "pro-GG" crowd (which, to be honest, if one is saying they are "po-GG" then they are in effect "pro-sexual harassment") thinks or feels in this situation; their point-of-view is decidedly fringe. The sooner you and a few others get over the misunderstanding that "pro-GG" is an equal-weight opinion alongside what this is actually about, the better. Tarc (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so you admit your bias towards the issue at hand. Derpen (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly minority, but not fringe, as I've shown. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

While I would not dismiss it as fast as others are arguing, a viewpoint of a random group of people that have otherwise not come together to state in a unified manner of what they would like to see changed, requiring people to guess from the numerous social media posts, makes the proGG side a fringe view because there is no focus point of it. We have some ideas (eg the issues with collusion between press and devs) but we cannot treat the proGG like that is an opponent in the debate because there is no common voice here. That's half the problem with finding any proGG side coverage to offer. (The other half is the fact that because of the actions of the few, that side is considered tainted by the press). And as Wikipedia, we can only strive to give as much balance that sources let us, we cannot change that story around. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I do agree, that is one of the problems when trying to source anything pro-GG. Another being that it is quite doubtful that the "reliable sources" will break from their biased stance and write an article that is pro-GG. Derpen (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The primary "accusation" here represented in mainstream reliable sources is that a significant number of people initiated a vicious, prolonged and newsworthy campaign of harassment against Zoe Quinn over false allegations of a conflict of interest, which is conflated with heavy doses of misogyny, slut-shaming, third-grade-level sex jokes, and a general tendency toward Internet trolling — particularly of women. The people who have been accused of that ("GamerGaters") have responded that they're actually concerned about journalism ethics. We accurately describe those positions, and the responses of mainstream reliable sources to each position. Not sure what more you want us to do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

What if I told you- and hold your breath here- that these "reliable sources" can be biased?Derpen (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So, you're praising these two singular pro-GG pieces that go "it's not about harassment it's about conflicts of interest and being censored by the man" because it gives a one-sided and biased account on your behalf rather than a general look into everything. Thanks for proving my point.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean just like how many of the sources in this article are one-sided? Better check that hypocrisy.Derpen (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

i think that people looking at those sources and our policies WP:GEVAL would get a WP:CLUESTICK, but the 5 pages of archives have proved me wrong. Maybe you can prove me right. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for proving my point once again. "If it's not biased in our [gaters'] favor it must be biased and we should fight for it to never be used against us again". You want articles without bias that just happen to be heavily biased against journalists and Quinn.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

which, to be honest, if one is saying they are "po-GG" then they are in effect "pro-sexual harassment"

Women have used the #GamerGate tag, I don't think they'd agree with Tarc.--ArmyLine (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that the bulk of the gamergate movement has been steeped in the harassment of a single woman because her ex-boyfriend decided to drag her in the mud when she had a moment of success in her job. While there may be adequate concerns of journalistic integrity found within the movement, as the article here states it has been soured by the large amount of people attacking Zoe Quinn because she is a woman rather than because they dislike her game.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

While there may be adequate concerns of journalistic integrity found within the movement

Perhaps we should include them, then.--ArmyLine (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You can clearly read what I've written so you can read the article to see that it discusses gamers' concerns on journalistic integrity.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

References

{{archive-top|Fixed. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)}}

Why is this talk page showing references at the bottom? What formatting got screwed up?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• All talkpages (and indeed every page) do this now if someone enters a correctly formatted reference. It was yet another "improvement" by the Wikimedia Foundation's technical side that has done nothing except irritate and waste people's time. I'll get rid of them, give me a sec. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  Yeah but I didn't see any references on the page when I attempted to edit them out myself. Ctrl+F "<ref" didn't find anything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  Look at Masem's edit. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  I see that now but for some reason it wasn't showing up earlier.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

{{archive-bottom}}

An Argument Against Perceived Undue Weighting of Erik Kain's Opinions

This has come up in the section on cited sources, but I thought I may as well start this in a new section because that one's become huge, hard to read and has changed topic multiple times now. Concerns have been raised about the disproportionate amount of times Kain has been cited in the article, with some thinking it's due to Kain's sympathies to the GamerGate movement, and is being used to give undue weight to pro-GG opinions But looking at it, a lot of the citings of Kain seem unnecessary and replacable with citations from other sources. Also it is incorrect that Kain is the most referenced writer in this article. Kain is referenced 16 times, while Todd VanDerWerff is referenced 17 times. Sarah Kaplan comes in 3rd place with 15 citations. I do not believe that any of these authors are being overly referenced due to give an opinion undue weight. It is instead more likely that they've accumulated all these citations because nobody wants to trudge through a list of 60 sources every time they make an edit and therefore gravitate towards the most popular articles. Below is a breakdown of the these 16 citations, starting with those from his September 4th article. If you don't feel like reading a wall of bulletpoints please skip to my conclusion and summary.

• Citations a, and c both have at least 4 other sources being cited, is citing Kain on top of this strictly necessary?
• Citations b and d are used to argue an anti-GamerGate point (accusations against Quinn have no substance according to many commentators), showing over citation of Kain is not necessarily a symptom of undue weight to pro-GG opinions. Like the preceding cases Kain is being cited as part of a larger consensus amongst the cited sources. Other sources that could have been used to cite this include source 25 and 26, both of which have only been cited once in this article.
• Citation e is once again Kain alongside another source.
• citation f [Streisand effect] can have the Bokhari article used as an additional source, or a replacement source to unclutter all the Kain referencing.
• g is Kain's opinion can only be cited from Kain
• h [changes to Polygon and Kotaku policies] seems to be only obtainable from Kain's article, but there's a good 60 sources being used on this article so I might have missed an alternative.
• For citation i Kain is the only source other than the TFYC interview (which i think can't be used in this situation under WP:SPS) that explicitly mentions what TFYC were accused of by Quinn.
• Citation j is alongside a citation of the TFYC interview. Is it necessary for notability reasons or something?
• Citation k is one where Kain is the only option for citation I think.
• Citations l and m could instead be referenced from the Ringo Article
• n is Kain's opinion
• For citation o Kain is cited alongside another source
• His Gamers are Dead article [source number 46] is cited alongside another third party source, but is probably necessary in this case to show the attacking your own audience perception is not just coming from one source and being given undue weight.

In summary of the 16 times Kain is cited:

• 7 of these are alongside other third party sources as part of a consensus [showing the Kain's articles have for the most part been used to represent non-fringe views]
• 7 do not necessarily require Kain to be cited
• 2 are used to source Kain's own opinions outside of a consensus

For this reason I conclude that Kain's opinions have not been given undue weight in this article, although the citations should perhaps be rejigged so it doesn't look as if they have been. I suspect the same conclusion would be reached if I were to look at the VanderWerff and Kaplan sources too, which could also perhaps benefit from some source rejigging so things don't look more dodgy than they actually are.

On a side note: Kevin Rawlinson's BBC article comes up on the list of references twice. Can an admin fix this? Bosstopher (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I do agree I think we need to back off a bit on Kain, but I do believe most of the points where he is sourced are duplicate or can be replaced. From prior discussion on WT:VG, Forbes now uses a "contributor" model for articles and while there is some editorial control, not every Forbes article is "blessed". We have decided that Kain and Tassi from Forbes are recognized "experts" for Forbes so they are generally okay, but keep in mind that they are only contributors here, and it's not like Forbes' hired editors are writing this. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me restart that you're trying to defend Kain, but I think there is a very valid point we simply have too much of that article sources for being on the cusp of really good reliability. Where it duplicates anything from more reliable sources we should remove it/replace it, but certainly eliminating it is not proper. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I never said I'm trying to delete Kain everyone has misunderstood me here completely. It doesnt help that Logan has gone ahead and spread his misrepresentation of what I'm saying all over twitter [1] and reddit [2], instead of asking for a clarification. I'm saying exactly the same thing you're saying Masem. My argument is that undue weight has no been given to Kain's opinions, as Baranof and Tara had claimed in the section on cited sources, and that their claims that Kain is being overcited to overweight pro-Gamergate opinions is false. Bosstopher (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

So basically it's time we showed Loganmac the door.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The 'claim' that Kain is being overcited is not 'false.' You may not agree that it's a problem, but he is still cited more frequently than any other publication, let alone any other author. That would be excessive even if he weren't an opinion columnist. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You have very clearly not read what I have written, or else you would know that he is not cited more than any any other author, he is the second most cited. Please read what I have written [at least the summarising parts and the first paragraph]. I may not be the most eloquent of writers but some of this stuff is clearly stated and should be obvious from even a brief skim. Bosstopher (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not read your extremely long post in its entirety and missed Vanderwerff. But another writer being heavily cited as well doesn't disprove that we're making too heavy use of this opinion columnist. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, I'll give a summarised version:

* Heavy use of Kain is not due to some sort of Pro-GG Agenda but instead laziness, as he's one of those sources everyone editing the article has read, and there's 60 other sources to trudge through.

* Kain has not been used to represent fringe views and 7 citations of him (out of 16) are alongside another source as part of a consensus.

* 7 of the Kain citations are unnecessary and can be removed/replaced with reference to other sources, without causing any change to the content of the article.

* In the actual writing of the article Kain's views have not been given disproportionate representation. It merely looks that way when you look at the reference list. The same likely applies for Kaplan and Vanderwerff. Bosstopher (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're blowing this out of proportion somewhat. When a source, especially one whose publisher prints an 'opinions are his own' disclaimer alongside his articles, is being overrused (and this one absolutely is, whatever you think the reason may be) we should be looking at why we need to use them so much before we continue to repeat information we can only cite to that one source. That's all. I haven't advocated excising him from the article, I've only said that when he's the primary (and very tenuous) justification for the inclusion of information that's problematic from a BLP perspective we ought to tread carefully. Nothing about that is 'false.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood me again. Given that you're not the only one who's done this I can only assume I'm not being coherent enough and would like to apologise to everyone for this. I will try to clearly state my opinion now. I am not claiming that you are advocating excising from the article, I know very well that this is not the case. You said in your post above "we should be looking at why we need to use them so much before we continue to repeat information we can only cite to that one source." This is exactly what I have done above. I have looked at every single time Kain has been cited in this article, and shown that around half the time he's been cited, it has been alongside another source as part of a consensus. So this is not a case of Kain being cited as a frequent lone voice of dissent. I have identified that in 7 out of the 16 cases where Kain is cited, another source can easily be found to use in lieu of Kain. So 'false' may be a be an overstatement, but only a slight one. Bosstopher (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not necessarily a problem, but I would still recommend that where Kain's article is used next to another and can clearly be removed, we should, while where he is the unique voice that we absolutely cannot get from others, we keep. It would be different if this was an article from the NYTimes summarizing the issue to the same level of detail, as we'd want to load up sourcing to that. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that your accounting has eliminated potential concerns: you're still ignoring that, for one reason or another, we're using an opinion columnist more often than nearly every news source cited in the article. The 'misunderstanding,' though, seems to be mainly due to you blowing this issue out of proportion. You created a lengthy examination of Kain's usage in this article based on a comment that he was being used too heavily considering that he was an opinion columnist. You've made this into a Great Big Deal and that's why it's being spread around the twitter outrage machine right now. And to be perfectly clear, I did not say that he had 'pro-gamergate leanings' and neither, so far as I can tell, did anyone else. I said he was more sympathetic to the gamergaters than most writers. That is not the same thing. Considering that you're so concerned about other people misrepresenting your statements, you ought be more attentive to how you are representing those of others. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry if you feel you have been misrepresented, I shall amend by original post though to more accurately represent your views.I'm sorry for making a great big post, I was just trying to be thorough. If the article hadn't been protected I would have simply replaced a good 7 of the citations of Kain with other sources thereby proving that other sources are available for what he's been cited for, and that the reason he had been cited so much was mere coincidence rather than the pushing of an agenda. In my great big wall of text post I gave viable alternative sources to be used as the citation instead of Kain. I do not see how I have not addressed your concerns. Bosstopher (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate poll

"collapsing per WP:FORUM"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Decide among yourselves whether to include this. gamepolitics.com, a website of the non-profit Entertainment Consumers Association, did a poll which asked what Gamergate is about. Results here: http://gamepolitics.com/2014/09/29/poll-results-what-gamergate#.VCnVZK21nxs Willhesucceed (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC) I think "does Wikipefia consider a poll a RS?" Is a question you really should be able to answer for yourself by now, TBH. Artw (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC) I didn't mean that it should be used as an RS on the issues, only that maybe it's noteworthy what people who participated in the poll think the issue's about. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC) It's a self-selected Internet survey on a gaming-oriented website, not a random-sampling scientific poll of the general public. Thus, it lacks statistical validity or meaning for any conclusion beyond "more readers of this specific website cared to cast a vote for one side than the other." An actual scientific poll on the issue might merit inclusion, but this is not that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Full protection?

What are we, five years old? This doesn't need to be full-protected to stop some petty dispute that can be easily solved by semi-protecting and blocking individual users. Relatively current events like this are especially important to keep updated and maintained for accuracy, and not everyone willing to do so has been touched with the exalted Midas hand of Wikipedia adminship. Tezero (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There was some heavy edit warring prior to the full protection. However I have been drafting a thread to post at ANI to try to address the single purpose accounts that have been disrupting the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on, that's silly and you know it. The last "edit war" was between long-established editors with 10k+ edits, not SPAs. When was the last time a new SPA caused trouble on this article? A long, long time ago, since this page has been semi-protected since forever. The most that I see is the bickering on this talk page, but for a controversial topic like this, it's expected that people, you know, don't agree with one another.

If someone breaks BLP protocol, just remove the talkpage comment - keep in mind that this hasn't happened as often as people are making it out to be, based on what's recorded within this talkpage's deletion log. We've seen worse talkpage disruption for Arab-Israel topics, and abortion topics. Sysops have a job at cleaning up this mess, if they don't like it, they have to put up with it - it's what they signed up for. If any sysop doesn't like having to put in the effort histdeleting posts, they should forfeit their sysop privileges, that's just like a McDonald's employee that "doesn't like flipping burgers". There should never be any proposal to limit who can post on a talk page, and under what circumstances they may post - that's just completely stupid and against WP:PILLAR. Talk pages should never be semi-protected to keep out newcomers, and the same holds for any other form of selective echo-chambering.

This latest full-protection arose because of a disagreement between Masem, Diego Moya, Tarc, TheRedPenOfDoom and a bunch of others, who are all by no means SPAs. It's all too easy to blame this article's problems on the SPA boogeyman. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that there are several single purpose accounts that have come here to disrupt. The edit warring was indeed between established editors though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If anyone has been disruptive, and by that I mean genuinely disruptive in terms of policy (e.g. gaming the system, edit warring, BLP vios), they should be addressed on an individual basis, and blocked/whatever accordingly. Any attempt to put everything under one single umbrella label is counter-productive, because as Wikipedia editors we are implored by Wikipedia guidelines to WP:AGF and understand that there may be some people out there who genuinely wish to be productive and constructive. Yes, there's a huge load of troublemakers, the troublemakers should be dealt with in a proper manner without affecting good-faith editors. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What are we, five years old? I can assure you that all popcorn barrels over here are loaded and ready to fire. I haven't been this entertained by wikipedia drama in years. --davidh.oz.au 08:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Trying to make a Wikipedia article better? Shut it down! Diyoev (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I protected the page due to edit warring by six different editors that had potential BLP implications. I don't like to be heavy handed at this article, but a response was needed. If we can get past the reverting, I or another admin will happily restore semi-protection.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed full protection and restored semi-protection; things seem to have calmed down.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't have.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

How are we supposed to know who are the troublemakers, if nobody can cause trouble? Surely if anyone plans to inform WP:ANI, they would need actual evidence of disruptive behaviour? By removing full protection, the problem will eventually solve itself; those who are WP:NOTHERE will dig their own holes, and those who aren't can fix up the page. Full protection solves nothing, and you can't keep that band-aid on forever.

I'm still awaiting on your reasoning as to why full protection solves anything, Ryulong. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that the talk page itself is protected. We could have good-faith IP editors posting references for our consideration, and we're missing that possibility. Not to mention that preventing all editors to make changes to the article *and* suggesting them at the talk page is contrary to the spirit of both the project and the protection policy. The incident is not recent anymore and the article has been greatly improved, I think we could test the waters and see if we can overview the talk page ourselves without resorting to the atomic weapons. Diego (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If protection does get removed would it be possible to have the words "Please Read the FAQ before posting" in big red letters at the top of the talk page? It's not technically breaking any rules to do that is it? Bosstopher (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is very doubtful between the experienced editors looking for sources, and those that are new to WP due to this trying to provide their own that we are missing usable RS for this article. In fact, much of the issues have really died down, and there's barely any coverage now. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's disappointing the reverting started back almost as soon as I removed protection. I have asked the most recent person restoring the challenged material to remove it themselves in the spirit of WP:BURDEN, so hopefully further steps won't be necessary.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In a nutshell

From this article which neatly summarizes both major sides http://www.littletinyfrogs.com/article/457868/Gamergate_Escalates

excerpted. Note that the perspective of GamerGate is inherently the original accusation against game journalism. this seems to be a fairly neutral summary of major viewpoints.

The #GamerGate Points include:

1. They think the gaming media is corrupt. Specifically, they think that gaming journalism is a clique that chooses what to cover and how to spin it based on their shared politics and relationships.
2. They think the big publishers buy positive coverage outright and that the little indies sleep/schmooze their way to positive coverage.
3. They are outraged at having their criticism misrepresented as misogyny
4. They strongly object to having their movement characterized based on the misbehavior of a tiny group of trolls and jerks.
5. They are angry that attempts to discuss the topic get blocked, censored, deleted, etc.
6. They are outraged at what they see as collusion in the gaming media openly attacking gamers as a bunch of “nerds” “gamers are dead” “basement dwellers”, etc.
7. They have evidence demonstrating double standards in how the gaming media treats different issues based on their politics
8. They believe that the gaming media has become infested by “Social Justice Warriors” who are using their platforms to jam their politics down the throats of people who just want to read about video games.

The opponents of #gamergate points include:

1. Any legitimate points the #gamergate movement might have had are far outweighed by the harassment and threats against outspoken women in the industry that is done in the name of #gamergate
2. They (gaming media) are outraged at being called corrupt
3. They (gaming media) are upset at the suggestion that the gaming media has some sort of organized conspiracy
4. They (general) believe gamers are inherently insular and want to shout down any attempts at reforming it.
5. They (general) believe gamers are entitled and thin-skinned, unable to show empathy or accept even mild criticism of their hobby.
6. They (gaming media) are angry that their entire profession is being mischaracterized based on poor choices made by a few
7. They (general) are very skeptical of new #gamergate claims because of the misrepresentations made during early claims
8. They believe that the “sane” people who support #gamergate are being used/tricked by the vile, misogynist core that is at the heart of #gamergate

--DHeyward (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Before anyone jumps in to say it's not a reliable source: Brad Wardell is an industry veteran. Edit: this contribution is not mine; I don't know why it wasn't tagged with the user's IP or handle. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Missed sig. Sorry. Yes, Wardell is a long time game developer. --DHeyward (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's an acceptable source for presenting Wardell's own opinion about the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's actually a neutral view from a third party with knowledge of both sides of the dispute and fairly assesses each party's views. It should be a model outline for the article as a NPOV description of the controversy. The only question, really, is how to get there. If you don't see that, you probably shouldn't be editing the article. --DHeyward (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. It's not remotely a neutral view and it's a self-published source to boot, which makes it entirely unacceptable as a source for anything except Brad Wardell's own opinion. It contains statements such as "In my mind, the balance of wrongdoing is heavily weighted on the opponents of #gamergate. Mainly, because its opponents have had a long head start of character assassination and harassment," "For that, the anti-#gamergate people started smearing me. (SJW logic: Make up allegations, use allegations as evidence, repeat)" and "You want me to quit throwing in the misdeeds of the SJW crowd in SJW faces? Then tell them to quit character assassinating me." This is literally the opposite of a neutral, reliable source. And no, sources don't have to be neutral but they do have to be reliable, and for them to be reliable they can't be self-published.

What you linked is nothing more than Brad Wardell's own personal blog, which has undergone no fact-checking or editorial processes. I remind you that we reached agreement that Zoe Quinn's Cracked.com blog was not an appropriate source for this article even for Quinn's own perspective. If that post cannot be used in this article, then there is most certainly no grounds for using this one. You cannot possibly argue that one personal blog by a game developer outweighs the literal mountain of mainstream reliable sources available. If you don't see that, you probably shouldn't be editing the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

and it is certainly not representative of how the mainstream sources have presented it, which is what we must be striving for, per policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The link is less important than the outline I excerpted. He wants to be peacemaker from his statements but his outline of the controversy (above) is a neutral outline of points held by both sides. It's a concise list of what each side is articulating and neutral coverage would articulate those points. --DHeyward (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The outline does not represent the mainstream coverage and so it is a non starter as a basis for anything. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Who are you to say what is considered "mainstream" and what "isn't"? What? Are you not supposed to gather facts from the other side of the argument because these apparently "bigger, better" journals say it isn't? And since when were restricted to news sites? Whoever said any of them weren't biased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derpen (talk • contribs) 21:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"In a post on his personal blog, Brad Wardell argued that the GamerGate movement is outraged at what they see as collusion in the gaming media." I'm fine with using the source in that manner. (And frankly, given the fact that Zoe Quinn's Cracked.com blog was rejected despite it being closer to a reliable source than Brad Wardell's personal blog, I think I'm being nice here.) Using it as a framework for what the article should say instead of using the umpteen squillion third-party mainstream reliable sources presented here? Not a chance. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"given the fact that Zoe Quinn's Cracked.com blog was rejected despite it being closer to a reliable source" Cracked is not anywhere near a reliable source. They're sensationalists. At least this source is trying to be sober. Willhesucceed (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Cracked has an actual editorial staff with at least some level of editorial review and content control. Brad Wardell's personal blog has literally none at all. So yes, Cracked is closer to what we consider to be a reliable source than Brad Wardell's personal blog is. You can't have it both ways — it is literally self-contradictory to argue that Cracked fails WP:RS because it lacks sufficient editorial controls while also arguing that Brad Wardell's personal blog meets WP:RS despite its lack of any editorial controls. That is a very obvious double standard.

And you must be kidding about Wardell "trying to be sober," right? The language used in his post speaks for itself; it is not sober, neutral or dispassionate in the least. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Cracked may have an editorial team, but it's a terrible one. They pick a salacious topic and then craft the article around it. Many, many of their articles have factual inaccuracies, too. They're not in any way reliable. Anyway, we're not here to debate Cracked's merit.

As a source on Wardell's opinion, this suffices. "Sober" is not the same as "passionless". He's obviously got reasons for his tenor. I agree it shouldn't be used as a template for the article, but I see no reason to exclude it altogether. That's all I was saying. Willhesucceed (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You're only focusing on one aspect. He characterizes views of each side. It's relevant because in articles about living people balance and getting it right is more important that just publishing. Do you disagree with the any of the statements that the points reflect each side? If that's the neutral perspective, then the goal should be to find the sources. Is there any statement or idea expressed, from either side, that is foreign to editors here? I took those 16 points because it appears all 16 are supported views. --DHeyward (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No, that's the opposite of the correct approach. We don't pick a narrative we like and then find sources to support that choice; when done with intent we call that POV-pushing. Rather, we simply look at what the best sources say and summarize their narrative(s). And this blog cannot credibly be asserted to be amongst the "best sources". CIreland (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, I ask is that list a neutral presentation of the issue given the sources people have read? This isn't a "narrative we like", it's a sum total descrition of the issue. It's also not weighted so it isn't POV pushing. Just those 16 points, 8 from each view. Does anyone disagree that those are the main points expressed from each side? --DHeyward (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I've seen all those points covered in reliable sources except:

• point 7 of the pro-GG side -I've not seen any mention of double standards nor what the GGs would consider evidence in the articles I've read-,
• and point 6 of the oppose-GG side -I have not heard about that "part taken for the whole" with respect to the journalism profession itself).

Also point pro-7 should say "they 'believe' they have evidence", and points 4,5 of the opponents side should say "'some' gamers".

I think it would be beneficial for the article to ensure that all those points are attributed to the people making them, instead of described in general, and that we make sure that WP:RSOPINION, WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:LABEL are made the core rules of style we use to write each claim. Diego (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that while most of the points on both lists are addressed, the amount they are addressed is far in weight of latter (the journalism side), and to try to use this list (even with the two points removed) to try to present an equal balance can't work. Yes, the source attempt as best a level-heading analysis, but as a SPS of a non-notable or someone not established as an expert in the field, this doesn't work for us to start with. That doesn't mean we can't touch on all the points that can be sourced, just don't expect we can do equal balance of the two sides. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The point as I see it is not to present an equal balance, is to use the bullets as a checklist to ensure that we have some coverage for each, even if it's minimal; I'd say currently we're missing 'any' mention at all for many points in the pro-GG side, even if they appeared in RSs. A single short mention could be enough to cover several of them at the same time, but it has yet to be added for some. Diego (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If you would like to use this as a guide for your personal approach to the article, feel free, but I think it's unreasonable to expect it to be formally adopted by all editors as some kind of a 'gold standard.' We're not going to include poorly-cited or minority opinions purely because they're on this 'checklist.' "Neutrality" here does not need to mean 'treating all perspectives as equally valid' but 'presenting the issue the way our sources do without injecting our own personal beliefs by giving preference to sources who present the issue the way we want it presented.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I was not thinking "gold standard" as much as "conversation starter". Diego (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct. That was my intention. These are major points of contention between both sides. It doesn't minimize the attacks generated by the controversy which have received the bulk of the attention. It does show what a neutral would likely cover as a complete article. --DHeyward (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think point 6 part taken for the whole has been expressed through adoption of more ethical requirements. Grayson's employer, for example, instituted more disclosure requirements following the disclosure of the relationship - not so much that they characterized Grayson's actions as improper but they also didn't like being blindsided. Also the Google group of professional game journalist also was listed (the list founder issued an apology for an email he wrote where he proposed an open letter supporting Zoe where all the journalists would sign it. This was ultimately rejected on ethics, whence the concerns of the few vs. many ). I have not seen evidence outlined in pro-gg 7.

Just as a quick correction, Grayson's employers did not change their policy as a result of Grayson. The (relatively minor) changes which were made happened because of issues unrelated to Grayson. - Bilby (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that this is a great outline / overview of the situation and should be incorporated into the article if possible. But as it stands, that's not possible. A self-published blog is not a source adequate for citation in a wikipedia entry (much less an entry so contentious as this one). I think a list or table like this would be great for inclusion, and I think this list is accurate, but I don't see how it could be included until the list is cited, used, or a similar list is published/used in a non-self-published news outlet. I disagree with User:NorthBySouthBaranof's claim that his isn't neutral. The article/post is certainly not neutral, but the list itself seems like a neutral and accurate accounting of the two sides. Someone can be on one side or the other, but still be able to produce an accurate description of what each side's view happens to be. Nevertheless, User:NorthBySouthBaranof is right that this list has a bigger problem because of it's origin as a self-published blog post rather than an article from an edited news source. Try and find sources for each claim from different citable sources or maybe a similar list from a citable source, then a list or table containing this overview of the dualing positions would be a great addition to the article. As for: "it is certainly not representative of how the mainstream sources have presented it." That seems like a very troubling view to take, given that one of the central claims for one side of the debate is that they are being shutout and silenced by mainstream sources. Of course, we need to cite mainstream sources for this entry, but the side with the view portrayed by the "most" mainstream sources shouldn't be the only one represented. - Atfyfe (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

What you are saying is "very troubling" is expressly what our policy requires. We weight article content based on the predominance of reliable sources, full stop. This is not "bias" - this is fundamental to the concept of Wikipedia as a tertiary-source encyclopedia rather than an alternative media outlet. If a position is not supported by reliable sources, our answer is not "all the sources are biased against that position." Our answer is that our content is based on what reliable sources say. Hence, we have repeatedly removed various claims about the shooting death of Michael Brown, even when there are claims that "media bias" has prevented that information from being published more widely. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding my point and I am sorry if I expressed it as a criticism of you (i.e. my use of the term "disturbing"). Of course the claims in the entry need to be backed up by reliable sources. Wikipedia really can't be a place for positions that view all reliable sources as biased and against them (e.g. many conspiracy theories). But my point is that we should be careful about how we treat "the predominance of reliable sources". I mean to point out that a view of this controversy is worthy of inclusion in this entry if it is be backed up by several reliable sources. But this is a weaker standard that requiring a view of this controversy be backed up by "the predominance of reliable sources" before inclusion. When there are conflicting depictions of the controversy, both backed up by reliable sources, we should not and need not just include the depiction of the controversy by "the predominance of reliable sources". We can include both, citing the reliable sources on both sides and note in the article that there are conflicting views of the controversy being reported by reliable sources. I just don't want us to be counting reliable sources to determine which side's view of the controversy shapes the article. We can neutrally include both, if both have sufficient reliable sources. But it's not a numbers game. Right? But since we are just talking in the abstract and not about a specific claim or article, we are probably talking past each other. I am not sure if we'd even disagree about a specific case, I was just reacting to the word "predominate". - Atfyfe (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. According to policy, it is a numbers game, in a sense, in terms of the weight that we allot to each point of view.

WP:NPOV states Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. ... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

It is trivial to demonstrate that far and away the most-discussed aspect of this controversy in reliable sources is the misogynistic harassment that has occurred and which apparently continues. The predominant point of view in reliable sources is that this controversy is an exemplification of long-unresolved issues of misogyny and sexism in gaming — and in American culture as a whole. Accordingly, that must be the predominant viewpoint in our article. That does not mean we exclude other viewpoints; it simply means that they must be subordinate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

NBSB, NPOV requires that controversies are represented by stating which side is which without adopting any of them in Wikipedia's voice (not even the majority one), "the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view", "avoid stating opinions as facts", "prefer nonjudgmental language", "indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". NPOV is more that weight, so please don't ignore the parts of the policy that are inconvenient to you. WEIGHT is definitely not a "number's game"; if it were, the rest of the policy page would be blank, but there are other parts of NPOV that your interpretation ignores and which correspond to what Atfyfe is saying. The number of sources at one side should only affect the amount of content devoted to each point of view, not the way we describe that point of view. Diego (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements" and "it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view" and "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public". We certainly can (and do) describe majority and minority viewpoints differently. Woodroar (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but we don't adopt the majority view in a controversy as ours either, which is what NorthBySouthBaranof is defending; we describe all views in an equally detached and analytic way. And you certainly are not claiming that those defending GamerGate are a fringe view? We have more than enough reliable sources stating that this is not the case. Diego (talk) 10:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

{{od}] BLP is somewhat different in that harm and truth are much more prominent that NPOV. Coverage is secondary. If that outline prevents broad BLP violations regardless of coverage, it is necessary to include it. BLP is the one place where truth rises above verifiability. If the netral and counter viewpoint cannot be used, then neither should be used. Calling the entire gamer community as "misogynist" and denying rebuttal is a BLP violation. We suppress reliable accounts and sources in many articles due to this. We cannot ignore BLP which we are doing by cowering behind published views that do not accurately reflect the people involved. --DHeyward (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere does this article describe "the entire gamer community" as misogynist. We say that there are "issues of sexism and misogyny in the gamer community." Which there indisputably are. Our sources, in fact, are quoted in this article as saying that the harassment comes from a "small" and "vicious" fringe and as describing the misogyny not as evidence of specific issues with the gamer community but as a manifestation of a broader societal problem. If there are ways that could be clearer, let's do it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, we have a source that says that a large number of the gamer community take offense to the claims the press are calling them all misogynists, so we are clearly giving the gamer side a fair shot on this issue. --MASEM (t) 06:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you not see the problem of "ingrained issues of sexism and misogyny in the gamer community" being stated in the opening sentence and "small" and "vicious" fringe ? I don't see the sources that reliably attribute "ingrained issues of sexism and misogyny" to the community nor do I see it as a true representation of persons that make up the gamer community. In short, it's false. Why is it the lead sentence when it's clearly not the majority and clearly offensive (i.e. BLP problem) as you both have stated? It seems to me these views are relegated to specific games and developers, not the community. --DHeyward (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this article is not entitled The gamer community. This article is entitled Gamergate controversy. As per the reliable sources, the Gamergate controversy centers around the misogynistic harassment of Zoe Quinn, et al. Reliable sources used that incident as a jumping-off point to discuss the indisputable and longstanding "issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community." We do not state that all of the gaming community is involved, but some sources discuss it as a systemic and widespread problem while others discuss the harassment in terms of the "small" and "vicious" fringe. We also represent the opposing point of view, as Masem has observed.

We are no more prohibited from stating that a large group — as the gamer community undoubtedly is — has a history of issues with misogyny and sexism than we are from saying that the Southern United States has a history of issues with racism. There is no BLP violation in making such an observation because neither "the gamer community" nor "the Southern United States" are identifiable people. Moreover, both statements are impossibly well-sourced and not really contestable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Too bad the intro, the first part people see in the article, does not adequately reflect any of the ambiguity that you just mentioned.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 09:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, the first sentence of the article details the dual issues at work precisely, while the third paragraph notes that mainstream media "focused on the sexist, misogynistic and trolling elements of the gamer community" — this clearly yet succinctly details that there are multiple elements of the gamer community and only some were viewed as directly at fault for the harassment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That sentence can be read to mean that the gamer community as a whole is composed of sexist, misogynistic and trolling elements, though. Maybe we could change "elements" to "individuals" to reinforce that it doesn't speak of the group as a whole? It would be like this: "focused on the sexist, misogynistic and trolling individuals within the gamer community". What do you think? Diego (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Individuals" seems to me to minimize the number of people; we're not talking 5 or 10, we're talking about thousands of people involved in harassment. How about "the sexist, misogynistic and trolling behavior of a vocal minority of the gamer community"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor fixing needed

Under the title "Allegations against Quinn and subsequent harassment" the word "allegations" is repeated a lot and it makes it sound amateurish when reading

"Shortly after the full release of Depression Quest[...] Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post containing a series of allegations, amongst which was that Quinn had cheated on him with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson. This led to allegations from Quinn's detractors in the gaming community that the relationship had resulted in favorable media coverage"

We should use another word for the second "allegations". Two sentences in, again "The incident led to broader allegations on social media that game developers and the gaming press are too often closely connected"

The next paragraph again, right at the start "As a result of these allegations, Quinn and her family were subsequently subjected..."

Yet again two paragraphs later "Non-gaming media attention has focused on the highly personal nature of the allegations about Quinn"

Maybe accusations or claims could be used for some of these Loganmac (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That's because the "allegations" are from her detractors about the as far as we are aware proven to be false claims that her romantic relationship with Nathan Grayson resulted in any positive press on Kotaku. "Allegation" works fine here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Is the "misogyny and antifeminism" section appropriately titled and written?

I think that there is a more unbiased way this could, at the very least, be titled.--ArmyLine (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

it follows the sources WP:NPOV#UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Quinn said the campaign had "roped well-meaning people who cared about ethics and transparency into a pre-existing hate mob." - "Zoe Quinn Told Us What Being Targeted By Every Troll In The World Feels Like"

Indeed it does. I'm not sure if Vice or someone directly involved in this controversy are the most appropriate sources, though.--ArmyLine (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

We cite what the reliable sources say. The fact that someone is "directly involved in this controversy" does not prohibit us from quoting them and using them as a source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Vice is not a reliable source.--ArmyLine (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

And why not? It's a secondary-source publication with known editorial processes and an established reputation. It is at least as reliable as sites such as APGNation, CinemaBlend and Forbes' contributor blogs that we quote here extensively in support of pro-GamerGate positions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Useful source

Iowa Public Radio conducted an 45-minute discussion of Gamergate yesterday with three academics who study video game culture, journalism and psychology. Available here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Brief article from CBC on the issues (not seeing anything immediately useful/new) [3] --MASEM (t) 18:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Anybody opposed to keeping track of GG using this?

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

---

Thought this might benefit both sides: the person who runs this site tracks links to news sources (usable and unusable here) and Tweets and archives forums. <redact per BLP>

We can't use his link, obviously, but I thought it might be useful to keep track of sources he catalogues as he consolidates everything in relation to the controversy. From there, you guys could decide which of his links to use and which ones aren't reliable. Hope it helps. TabascoMan77 (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a useful link, chock-full of allegations/assertions/aspersions about living people and wholly unhelpful in creating a reliably-sourced article about the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Right...I wasn't asking to use the link to back up a sentence in the article. I was saying that you guys might eventually be able to use it to pull useful RS links from time to time. TabascoMan77 (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

So, fresh off a 24h block for posting links to BLP-violating material, you come here and post...another link to BLP-violating material? I think the next one's gonna be a wee bit longer than 24h, bro. Tarc (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to post BLP-violating stuff. I'm not insinuating or accusing anyone of anything. I thought you might be able to pull stuff from that site that would help build the article. I was asked to be more constructive and I'm trying to be. TabascoMan77 (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Want to add an additional source to first paragraph

I'd like to add the following source to the first paragraph:

Though critics claim the Gamergate controversy promotes sexual harassment and misogyny(venturebeat), female supporters claim such accusations use women as a "shield to be silently used in order for gaming media – and those that gaming media represents – to push an agenda".(source: http://www.cinemablend.com/games/-NotYourShield-Hashtag-Shows-Multi-Cultural-Support-GamerGate-67119.html)

It has been reverted, however, because "no, you will not". How can the sentence could be reworded so the source can be added?--ArmyLine (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think (although I might be mistaken about Tarc's reasoning for the revert) that it's more the placement of the sentence at the top of the article than its actual content. Note how everything in the introduction has half a dozen sources sources behind it to show relevance, and doesnt really go into the details of the debate. I see no reason, why something like this cant be placed later in the article with the Bokhari techcrunch article used as an additional source. Bosstopher (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

NotYourShield is mentioned further down: it's not the clearcut 'proof' that Usher would have us believe. Usher, incidentally, claims to have been the one to leak mailing list emails 'proving collusion' to Breitbart. CinemaBlend isn't a particularly good source for this article to begin with, but Usher is an involved party in GamerGate with a very clear bias and should be treated as such: if he's the only source for a 'fact,' we shouldn't be using it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Can a watered down version be derived from the Bokhari article [4]? Also, if an article has a youtube video by another party embedded into it, does that video count as part of the article? Bosstopher (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

How do you prove his bias? Because I can show you half the sources used in the article are biased Loganmac (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they found a handful of women who do not subscribe to the "pro-GG" side of things, that's wonderful, but it is the tiniest of minorities. I hate to reach for another Obama analogy so soon, but it's like the Republicans who consistently tout the African-Americans who do not like the president as some sort of proof that they are a multicultural-friendly party...when the reality is they poll in the single digits among A-A's. The "notyourshield" hashtag thing is addressed appropriately down in the article, it has no place in the lead. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not a lead thing. I'm not 100% sure if we need it in the body yet, but there's better place for it later. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

FFS @Diego Moya:, why are you moving this info to another location? It's the same NotYourShield stuff that is already covered in the "Social media campaign and backlash" section. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a new reference and it was misplaced in the lead. The section about mysogyny seemed relevant to the wording. Diego (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Except it says "female supporters say...". Which female supporters? Where? Some Twitter accounts? No, that's purely the view of Usher, and even he's quoting KnowYourMeme. That statement was clearly false. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So you think talking about the same exact thing in multiple places is good editorial judgement? Tarc (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If different details are given at each place and those are relevant to the respective sections where they're placed I'd say yes, that's good editorial judgement, as it means that the content can be covered from more than one angle. However here I don' have a strong preference for its placement. If you think the new source is better placed at "Social media campaign and backlash", as long as you don't simply remove it then by all means do what you think is needed to improve the writing. That you for once made a constructive edit to the article would be a welcome change. Diego (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, snark; how quaint. The article is awash with angry socks and SPAs; if you wish our time to be less consumed by removing their bad edits, perhaps you can convince these editors that share you pro-GG POV to stand down. Tarc (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI, my point-of-view is pro-neutrality. I only push for GG where the article is slanted against; if the article fairly represented the position of both sides according to their real weight I wouldn't have much to do here. Oh, and I don't wish our time would be less consumed, as that is not a goal of the project. I want us to spend all the time it's needed to get the article right, and that means addressing the legitimate concerns of any editor; you seem interested it getting only your own perspective covered by silencing those who disagree. Diego (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

New Adland article re: GamerGate and Intel

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

---

http://adland.tv/adnews/intel-has-gamers-inside-pulls-advertising-gamasutra/251869514#ibSHU4efLPhAbRdT.99

Willhesucceed (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Look up. Bosstopher (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

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

New Liana K article on GamerGate

New Article by Liana K, given that there's a paragraph with her views on the issue, her revised views should probably be incorporated? Bosstopher (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I've attempted something based on this piece.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Her views on another living person should not be included. There is no indication that she has any meaningful experience in professional journalism and MetalEater does not seem to fit our criteria for reliable sources. I don't object to including her opinions regarding GamerGate and the state of gaming journalism, but her opinion of Milo should be kept out.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If, as you argue, she has no "meaningful experience in professional journalism," then her observations about gaming media have no meaningful foundation and must be similarly excluded. Selectively quoting her observations where they are flattering to one side while omitting her observations where they aren't is rather unacceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Her level of experience in journalism and nature of MetalEater as a source is directly relevant to her reliability for claims about a living person. I think she can be cited for her own opinion, though I have no particular attachment to using her as a source. My point is that she should not be cited for claims about specific living individuals.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

So simply because she's critical of the one big pro-gamergate journalist now all of her shit is thrown out of the article? Good game.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

And "her views on another living person" she was being critical of his reporting. How is that a BLP vio?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Kerzner was critical of more than his reporting and the manner in which she was critical of his reporting is important as well. There is no reason why we should include her angry tirade against the man in this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't how she's relevant to anything. That article seems to have been made just to attack a person. Also how is MetalEater notable? Loganmac (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Notability is not an issue with sources so don't pull this shit. No one had any issue with Metal Eater until Liana K made a statement about her argument with Yiannopoulos. And she was not attacked because she was critical of Yiannopoulos. She clearly points out that Yiannopoulos made a dismissive remark to her that she felt was sexist and misogynist and that remark led to harassment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that with your edit we are now giving an opinion piece by a cosplayer and comedic late-night talk show host with minimal experience in professional journalism more weight on this subject than numerous long-time journalists and academics. I also have to be a bit annoyed that this angry tirade against Milo is getting added in when people won't even allow his reports to be mentioned in this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

How is anything that's in there now an angry tirade against Yiannopoulos?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should address the first point, which cannot be seriously disputed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you could address my earlier point in that no one had any god damn problem with Liana K's statements until she said something bad about Milo.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I didn't pay much attention because it was just one meager-sized paragraph of many showing opinions about GamerGate in general. It then turned into a massive paragraph that slammed another person so I suddenly took notice. That's not unusual.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I made a first attempt at summarizing her position, but this should be cut down even more because it is still giving Kerzner way too much weight in this section.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Fish's comments

In regards to this change [5] from TDA: There are three major issues here:

1. We really don't need to add more negative opinions about the proGG side from prior events at this point. The article - due to the press angle - already paints those that harassed Quinn etc. as bad people, so more comments of that same are unnecessary. And while Fish is well-established to be combative, I'm not 100% sure we really need his vulgar descriptions of this in an article that is already in a heated state.
2. There is no clear evidence that he was doxxed due to those comments (which would make them appropriate) or simply speaking out in favor of Quinn (making the quotes unnecessary). As without evidence we should simply avoid any significant details here; he was doxxed due to speaking out for Quinn, and then left the industry. End of story.
3. Minor, but this also replaces a very reliable source (Verge) with two weak ones. Understood this is for quoting, but again, not sure the quoting is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Verge source is from 2013 and does not discuss this situation at all. I replaced that with sources that actually discussed the allegations, discussed Fish's situation, and noted his combative style as being part of it. Paste and The Daily Dot are both reputable outlets cited in other parts of this article to make anti-GamerGate arguments such as blaming it all on 4chan, including claiming #NotYouShield was made up on 4chan and perpetuated by sock puppets. Your reasoning for excluding this is essentially that it would "fuel the pro-GamerGate fire" and that is not a valid rationale, but instead one that seems steeped in POV considerations. In fact, it appears to me that your real reason for removing it is because it makes Phil Fish look like a bit of a jerk and makes the alleged hacking seem less like an attempt to silence a valiant male voice defending a horribly-harassed woman, but more like retaliation for some rather vitriolic attacks. Right now this says people defending her were targeted and Fish got hacked and doxxed for supporting her. The fact this person was likening her critics to rapists and calling them "ball-less manboobs" is definitely relevant. By knowingly excluding the full story, despite it being laid out in reliable sources, we are propagating a false image of people viciously attacking anyone who says a kind word in favor of a poor, defenseless madame. This is unethical and a violation of NPOV.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Verge 2013 article establishes that Fish is a known controversial figure to begin with (that was the Fez2 mess). The reason to not include the specific quotes from Fish is that they do make him look like a jerk but more importantly make us look more biased against the proGG side because of the bitterness of those statements, if there is no reason to include them. (And yes, I'm well aware that before this, Fish did have a certain reputation in the industry for outbursts, etc. I am no way trying to defend his image here). If we were 100% sure that those that doxxed Fish were doing because of those statements, then yes, including them is almost necessary as to talk about the type of language that led to the doxxing. But that's not an affirmed point: he sided with Quinn and then he lashed out, but which was the true catalyst, we can't tell. As such, we should very much avoid including any statements that are unneeded that will make the claims that this article is more biased (even though I do recognize that having them sourced to Fish should not do so, it will be taken that way, judging from the past of this article). If you can show that the doxx was specifically or mostly influenced by the bitter statements, then we should include them, but otherwise, by identifying Fish as a "controversial" person from prior issues (the 2013 Verge article) the reader can infer that his support of Quinn likely met with problems (And they can read more if they wish to know more). --MASEM (t) 00:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but your reasoning that noting what Fish said is going to bias the article against GamerGate or create the appearance of bias against GamerGate is kind of ridiculous. His comments are also not solely relevant in the context of the alleged hacking, but point to the overall toxic atmosphere at the time on both sides rather than just one side. Reliable sources saw fit to include specific quotes so I am not sure why we should not do the same. I am restoring it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

One reliable source in mentioning Fish included them. We also did not include some of the more tasteless language that those that harassed Quinn used. So it is completely out of line for this article, encroaching on BLP issues. --MASEM (t) 02:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The stuff about Fish is frickin' book-ended by a quote from a harasser and a demeaning comment from Quinn. I fail to see how this is a BLP violation. The quotes are Fish's own words as noted by reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

While they are in his own words, they paint him in a bad light, and a reader unaware of Fish might come off thinking he is always that way. If the specific wording of his tweets triggered the doxx, then yes, inclusion makes sense but we can presently avoid a BLP issue of characterizing a person wrongly be including them like this. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Image captions aren't another front in the battle

If we're going to have images of some of the major players, there's no need to rehash every detail about them. Just a brief who-it-is and what-they-did, e.g. going into all the minutiae of Quinn's ex in her caption is excessive. I'm also unconvinced of the need to include Adam Baldwin; have reliable sources continued to make note of his initial involvement? It seems like it was a one-and-done blip. Tarc (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Stating Sommers "disagreed" with the criticism is limp-wristed, while refusing to mention why Quinn was subject to any campaign is overly protective. The allegations against Quinn are widely discussed and directly relevant to the whole issue so a brief summation should be included in the caption. Baldwin is totally relevant seeing as he is believed to have started up the hashtag for which this whole frickin' article is named and is certainly the one who got it the most initial exposure.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree the captions should be limited to the name as long as the text of why they are relevant is "next" to the image in the body of the article. One less area for edit conflicts/warring. --MASEM (t) 00:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The whole point of having the captions puts the images in context with the rest of the text in the article. You can't just say "look at this picture of someone who appears in the text". There has to be some form of contextual significance to the prose.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure you can, particularly if we are just identify names specifically mentioned in the article, with no immediate relevance of the photo to the event and just for attaching a face to a name. Even moreso in this case when we have editors on both sides arguing about POV, the captions need to stay as neutral as possible and the best way to do that is to say "Zoe Quinn" under a photo of her, for example. This is a case we need people to read the article and not just skim the captions to understand what's going on.--MASEM (t) 16:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

From my experience, image captions tend to include some information from the text. You can't just go "Zoe Quinn" or "Adam Baldwin" here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Radio Nero

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

---

Thoughts on using this as a source: https://soundcloud.com/radio_nero

It's hosted by Milo, a journalist; it's independent of Breitbart; and many of the figures interviewed so far are well-known in the industry or are notable participants in the controversy.

Willhesucceed (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

HOMG!!!!! HOMG!!!!- the journalist conspiracy continues! Milo is obviously in the pocket of the gamergaters as an acquaintance of the founder of gamergate hash tag. Conspiracy1 He must be removed from the article as completely bias source. And HOMG ! More conspiracy and bias! he is also colluding with Sommers. Why werent these connection exposed! HOMG the corruption!!!1!!! Why isnt the media covering this inscestious relationships? HOMG! This obvious collusion and MUST be removed from the article. HOMG! They cannot be reliable!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If you can't see the difference between interviewees who are doing it for free and journalists who are being paid to write articles defending their jobs, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all. Willhesucceed (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

More to the point, this is pretty much the definition of a self-published source. General comments about the issue that do not relate to accusations about people might be usable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ya, I thought as opinion it might be useful, especially to flesh out or contextualise relevant parts of the article, e.g. Erik Kain's and Sommers' opinions. Willhesucceed (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

For the purposes of this discussion are we pretending that Milo Yiannopoulos isn't actively involved with promoting GamerGate? Artw (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

For the purposes of this discussion, are we pretending Leigh Alexander and the gaming sites aren't actively involved in doing the opposite? Willhesucceed (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

We certainly have enough random editors popping up every five minutes to suggest anything vaguely related to them isn't a proper source on far less substantial grounds, yes. Artw (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Since Leigh and Polygon are in the article, this can be in the article. Willhesucceed (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Artw (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Willhesucceed (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Not unless Wikipedia's RS policies are spontaneously overthrown to allow a source that is involved, untrustworthy and shows clear bias and has nothing to say of substance anyway. Artw (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

An awful lot of users pushing for his inclusion appear to be SPAs as well. Artw (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling him "untrustworthy" is probably a violation of BLP. All the things you write could be written about Leigh. Anyway, it's not his opinion I care about. He's an interviewer. It's the interviewees that matter. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

SPS states you can include self-published sources as long as it's an expert on the matter, maybe we can take something by Christina Sommers from it, on feminism and women representation in games Loganmac (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, and Erik Kain, and whoever else has been on there who's relevant. Willhesucceed (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

A self-published source can only be used for the opinions of the author. The idea is that if Alice self-publishes information about herself, we can safely assume that the opinions expressed in the piece are those she holds. However, if Alice publishes a piece in which she quotes (or interviews) Bob, we cannot assume that the source accurately depicts Bob's opinions. This is not to say that Milo's interviews are inaccurate, but that in terms of reliable sources, they cannot be assumed to be accurate depictions of the opinions of those being interviewed in the same way that an interview published through Time or a source with independent editorial oversight would be. Accordingly, I would be wary of using these to source the opinions of those interviewed, except where they are used to source Milo's personal opinions only. - Bilby (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there reason to believe the source is unreliable? As I understand it, exceptions to the rules are allowed. I think in this case it's justified in order to flesh out some of the sources we've already included. It's not like it's solely a pro-Gamergate endeavour, either. From what I understand, there will be people on the other "side" interviewed, too. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the whole issue is that Milo is so right-wing and his publication Breitbart has a history of bad reporting it makes anything he writes problematic to include here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

My own feeling is that if the interviewer has been shown to be strongly on one side of the debate - whatever side that might be - then it would be very difficult to justify an exception to the self-published rule in regard to anything other than their own opinion. - Bilby (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain the reasoning here? It seems really strange to exclude an interviewee's opinion on the basis of the interviewer. The interviews are uncut, too. Willhesucceed (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPS is pretty cut and dried. If there was some exception for interviewees speaking in a source published by someone else, it would be in the policy. Wikipedia has been around for years, remember: GamerGate is not some special case that deserves 'exceptions' just because most of the sources that depict it favorably are distinctly unreliable ones. Milo is not recognizable as an 'expert' on GamerGate under the conditions outlined in that policy. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

In response to TarainDC: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field." Milo isn't just anyone, he's a journalist, the person helping him put together the podcast is a journalist, and the interviewees would have complained if something was untoward. "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." Except we all know why that isn't happening in this instance.

Since the journalists and academics who've been interviewed don't have a problem with it, I'm considering it usable, unless someone can justify its exclusion. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• • What part of "no, this is a textbook SPS" was unclear? Protonk (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

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

This article is POV, and most of the sources are clearly POV as well

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

---

The article's lead, as well as most of it's sources, clearly take a stance that GamerGate can be boiled down to a conflict caused by rampant misogyny. Although many of the sources could otherwise be considered reliable, the clear editorialization, often present in the headline, demonstrates the sources are approaching the subject from a POV. Other reliable sources(Forbes, Medium, even TechCrunch and Slate) express more neutral, and contrary views.

Additionally, many of the sources used in the article are owned by the same parent companies, including Vox and Gawker Media.

The article is also writhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&action=edit&section=newten in an inverse manner, compared to most wikipedia articles. The main body of the article concentrates on criticism, with only a small section discussing the origins of the movement and it's legitimacy. Generally, Wikipedia articles have a criticism section, not an entire article devoted to criticism.

I believe the following sources qualify as reliable, and should be integrated into the article, as part of a transition to a NPOV article.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/

Discusses the possible origins of the conflict, as well as a neutral explanation of both sides.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/09/gamergate_explodes_gaming_journalists_declare_the_gamers_are_over_but_they.html?wpsrc=fol_tw

POV, but less POV than most of the current sources, and provides and addresses the 'Gamer is dead' controversy.

https://medium.com/@aquapendulum/reality-check-what-do-the-statistics-tell-you-what-gamergate-is-about-8cc80ddb7201

Statistically contradicts claim that Zoe Quinn is at the center of gamergate.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/

A reasonable analysis of both sides.

It is certainly true that the front page of Google results, as well as the NYT present a certain view of GamerGate. But that perspective is not neutral, and it's prominence does not make it correct.

I hope that this article can be turned into an example of Wikipedia's ability to be neutral in the face of conflict, but I dare not edit it myself. Skrelk Skrelk (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC) 04:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Three of those four sources are already being used in the article. The only one that's not—medium.com—is a blog written by someone at Know Your Meme, which is not a reliable source. WP:NPOV doesn't mean that we give every viewpoint an equal say, but rather all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. You are right that the majority of sources "present a certain view of GamerGate", and that is how we balance the article. Woodroar (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Get in line with every other dormant account who came back to life to solely express this very flawed opinion. There have been constant calls that the article is biased, but it has been demonstrated that these claims are coming exclusively from members of the movement who want to completely deny that several prominent women have been and are still being harassed not because of what they did in regards to the industry but because they are women. The article does not say that the movement is misogynistic, as everyone like you has been claiming is the reason it is biased. It rather states that a slew of misogynistic attacks accompanied the vaguely defined complaints of journalistic integrity. Not to mention that, and this has been stated by multiple sources, that the whole reason that this started was because Zoe Quinn's ex posted all over the Internet claims that she had slept around on him when any fucking sane person would recognize that he's just a dejected ex lashing out, but instead the movement latched on to the fact that her new partner wrote for Kotaku and that must mean he wrote things about her that gave her an edge in the industry when that was disproven by Totillo, considering there is no fucking review on Kotaku for Depression Quest and in all my fucking conversations on Twitter, they think the fact that Grayson gave Quinn time in his piece to talk about how after the failed reality show she wanted to start her own game jam means jack shit in the long run. You all just want to make this page exclusively about the movement and sweep under the rug all of the negative things that accompanied it and show the movement in a bad light and that's not how things work on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Rude.--davidh.oz.au 05:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Did I hit a nerve considering most of this applies to you as well?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea where you got that idea. Please refrain from swearing and using undue foul language on talk pages. --davidh.oz.au 06:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It might be because you haven't edited here in 2 years up until the controversy began.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm not here for the article. I'm here to admire the typically bad wikipedia policy getting put in practice and the highly-charged acerbic editing atmosphere, so feel free to ignore me. It might surprise you that the only reason retired editors pass by talk pages is to be faintly amused by the state of the wiki. Check my user page. I left wp ages ago out of protest when the wiki turned sour and the community got in the way of editing. As for my edit history, I'll continue editing the odd article here and there when I feel like it, provided I'm not using my paid vpn to have some privacy at the time and/or I care enough to turn it off so I can edit. For the most part however, wp is no longer my go-to place for information and I limit myself to the technical sources instead, hence my apparent lack of heavy editing activity. I'm sorry that you're blind to wikipedia's failings. You need to take a leaf out of Masem's book. --davidh.oz.au 06:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

So retired that your only major edits have been regarding this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, dude, shut the fuck up. No, it is not just a bunch of random people resurrecting their dormant accounts who think this article is biased to one side. I and many other active and established editors have been objecting to the blatantly partisan slant being imposed by unabashedly biased editors such as yourself for a while now. We sort of grumble and accept it given the persistence of your side but the dissent is here and it is very real. Personally, I support keeping the POV tag.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The POV claims like the above are simply things we cannot fix because the sourcing that exists is inheriently unbalance. I believe that at least myself and a few others are trying to keep this as middle ground as possible from both those that want to paint the gamer side as harshly as possible, and from the proGG side that cannot help but read this and think it is unbalanced when at the end of the day it's balanced as best we can by the sources. As long as we do our best to balance what is provided by coverage and not introducing (or removing when it is introduced) new POV, then we are doing our jobs, and that's why the POV does not apply here. (Or more to the point, unless someone can point out that we've been ignoring a whole body of assuredly reliable sources that coverage a point, our hands our tied and we're doing the most middle ground aspect that our policies allow). --MASEM (t) 06:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You are part of a minority in that fact, TDA. There are active editors like yourself and Diego who are discussing the issue and then there are a dozen accounts who have been inactive for years and coming here to only edit this page, and related ones.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't bother, mate. Many people before you have tried and failed to improve the article. --davidh.oz.au 05:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, you are part of the problem. I am neither a gamer or developer or reporter. Your broad nonsense of dismissing those that believe the article is incredibly biased contrary to policy, specifically BLP policy, is disturbing. BLP policy, is, at the forefront, about getting it right. If mainstream game journalist have chosen a side and that's the sources you believe are reliable, that is not shield you can use to cover up BLP issues. At best, the article should be stubbed until more neutral coverage is available. We are not automatons. WP has often made the choice to not publish anything rather than publish "mainstream" sources that are obviously harmful and objectively. Your broad label is personally offensive and you should retract it. --DHeyward (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Do I really need to paste the 10-mile-long list of reliable sources for this article again? The idea that all of them are "biased" is so impossibly ludicrous as to be unworthy of further discussion. You're pushing nothing more than a conspiracy theory borne of the inability to accept that the position you support has been examined and rejected by mainstream sources.

What you're demanding is that we ignore the dozens of mainstream sources (ranging from The Week to PBS NewsHour, On The Media to The Boston Globe) which discuss the issue as an episode of vicious, misogynistic harassment driven by historic tensions in a subculture confronted with change, and instead adhere to the tiny number of fringe sources (Breitbart, a Forbes contributor blogger) that adhere to the claim that it's about some nebulous connection to journalistic ethics that just happens to have been centered on third-grade-level jokes about an obscure female developer's sex life.

The article already went through AfD once and survived. If you think it should be deleted, feel free to nominate it again and see what happens. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Getting it right and neutral is larger than whatever interpretation of sources you imagine exist. No one doubts there are misogynistic elements. Non-neutrally presenting that those elements represent an entire community is as ludicrous a conspiracy theory as you proposed. Yet the article reads as if that CT is real. The interpretation and use of sources to weave this vast network of misogynist gamers sounds like some of the tumblr blogs. --DHeyward (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

So you claim. Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources say, not what editors claim they should say if they were "unbiased." And it is hardly a "conspiracy theory" to suggest that the gamer community is riven with a significant level of overt misogyny and sexism, as amply demonstrated by the sources.

If you don't want to write an encyclopedia article based on what the reliable sources say about a topic, then may I politely suggest that you are in the wrong encyclopedia project. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Vivian James drawing

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

---

Do we really need this drawing? It adds nothing to the article. Yes, we describe the character as existing but that is not enough for WP:NFCC to qualify for inclusion AFAIK.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What part of NFCC do you think it's not complying with? Willhesucceed (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Contextual significance. This isn't an article on "Vivian James".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a section on the article about Vivian as a result of TFYC situation, going into detail about the character. That's appropriate contextual significance. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but it's not like we have extensive critique of the design. Just people vaguely describing the character and also criticizing its mere existence.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't be relevant even if it was a free image, but it absolutely does not meet the WP:NFCC. It does not 'significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic,' and I don't see how 'its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.' It's not even central to the topic of that section, much less the "article topic." Even its rationale in the TFYC article is weak, but here it's just silly. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There is discussion about the implications of the character reflecting on the community. That needs the image to be seen. That's contextual significance definitely from an NFCC stance. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It's a tangent at best: the image is in no way important enough to the article topic to give the reader a better understanding of the subject. A reader is not going to finish an un-illustrated version of that section confused or with an imperfect understanding of the issue. As it is the TFYC is seriously overlong and unneccessarily detailed given how little attention that 'controversy' has gotten: adding an illustration just takes us further into undue weight. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It might be informative to let people see what the misogynists have created. I'd prefer to use the picture of Vivian in the crowd with the cellphones, but this works, too. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the article hurt without it though?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, without the image, people who read this article and who don't already know the character wouldn't recognize it if they find it over the internet. Identification of visual items is an accepted reason for including images; and as you say, there isn't an article about Vivian James at Wikipedia where the image would be more relevant than here (yes, there's TFYC, but it's equally relevant there). Diego (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the NFCC discussion? Because they don't seem to agree. If this image were only being used in this article, it would have been deleted by now. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

To Diego: But it has nothing to do with this article in particular. The character is discussed. But it's not about the character's design or visual themes. It's just that the character exists. This just seems like you want to keep the image on the site so it doesn't get deleted for being an orphaned fair use image TBH.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Not taking sides on whether the image should be kept or not, but the image caption can't just be "Vivian James". Be more obvious.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Even with TDA's expansion of the caption, the image is completely out of place on the article. This is about the whole of gamergate and there's no relevance to include this non-free image of unknown authorship on this particular article. I'd suggest we include photographs of the actual people involved (photos of Quinn and Sarkeesian have both been uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons), but that just might piss off the legion of people who are mad at me on Twitter for being too vocal on this very page. This drawing's inclusion here is simply for the sake of having it next to a vague description of it existing. We do not need to have the artwork of unknown provenance looking dour next to text that explains TFYC's dispute with Zoe Quinn, the hacking attempt, and criticism of the mere existence of the character, only one of which includes anything regarding the character's actual visual design elements. Again, File:Vivian James.jpg has no place on this page. It only vaguely has a place on The Fine Young Capitalists article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Diego Moya, the "identification" that you're claiming is not one of the criteria of WP:NFCC. It's only a vague requirement for if there is an article solely about the subject of the image. The drawing of Vivian James is not inherently relevant to the discussion of gamergate as a whole. It's an image for the sake of having an image on this page. Having this massive drawing accompany text that basically attacks its mere existence is not contextual significance.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a direct NFCC criterion, but it's a common outcome recognized by NFCI. If the problem is the size of the image, it can be made smaller with ease. Diego (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

But like it's not inherently important to feature on this page. The only thing it adds to the page is an image that satisfies the Gamergate crowd because I can assure you that if we put a free photo of Anita or Zoe here (which we are completely capable of doing even if the one photo we have of Quinn is her drinking beer at some game conference) they would flip their collective shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If Vivian was just mentioned "Oh, they created a mascot", then NFCI would not apply to allowing its use here. However, because there is discussion of why the character was created and some thoughts from other sources about that, then it does pass; it is very relevant to GamerGate even if it represents the proGG side of things - including a free pic of Zoe or Anita would just as much balance it the other way (not that I'm saying we can't). NFCC would allow this image, and the only editorial reason being given to not include seems to be "I don't like it" type statements. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

the only editorial reason being given to not include seems to be "I don't like it" type statements. This is a completely inappropriate mischaracterization. By your logic most Wikipeida articles would be peppered with images every few line, each time a new subject came up. Even if this were a free image it would not be important enough to merit inclusion. It's purely decorative here, not illustrative: looking at Vivian James does not enhance the reader's understanding of GamerGate. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Having been in NFCR enforcement for years, this image has a lot more reason to include than many others that skimp by on weak rationales. There is sourced discussion about the image, that immediately makes it "important" enough to consider for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the image's discussion I'd say that the uninvolved contributors don't agree that this image's NFCC rationale for this article passes muster, though. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It does past muster, and that's speaking from a purely NFCC manner, this part is not up for question. Now we are not required to include it because it passes NFCC, but I'm also not see any reason not to include this if we also include photos of the people also affected, to balance that out. (And I'm speaking as someone that I do not side with proGG part of the situation, but can tell there's an effort here to try to delegitimize any proGG argument by some editors here and we need to work the balance a lot better within the allowances WP lets us). --MASEM (t) 06:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

:It does past muster, and that's speaking from a purely NFCC manner, this part is not up for question. The uninvolved editors in the image's NFCC discussion who are supporting its use seem to be supporting its use only in the TFYC article: at least one explicitly mentions that it's good and appropriate that the image has been removed from this one. That's because this image is not important enough to the issue being discussed (GamerGate, not Vivian James) to merit inclusion. There are only a very few sources that even mention her. That's important here.

Now we are not required to include it because it passes NFCC, but I'm also not see any reason not to include this if we also include photos of the people also affected, to balance that out. "Balance it out?" This is just silly. Photos of others affected would not add to the readers' understanding of the article, either. They'd be purely decorative, just as this one would, and if we included photos of every figure as relevant to the issue as Vivian James (and that's a pretty low bar) this article would be a mess, NFCC aside. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

NFCC does not require an article to be solely dedicated to a specific topic to use an image of that topic in the article, and since the characters is now strongly tied to GG, it is very relevant here. Also, we should be looking to add images, free ones at least, as per MOS we should not be a wall of text. The most reasonably likely ones that we have are those of Zoe and Anita which are the two most relevant figures here. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the Vivian James drawing is not relevant to the whole of gamergate or this page. Not to mention we do not discuss the character that much to have it feature at all.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, she's 'tied' to GamerGate, just as a living individual only notable for their role in GamerGate would be in a WP:BLP1E sense. But that doesn't mean that she's so important to GamerGate that an image of her in this article passes NFCC: it only means that GamerGate is important to her notability. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is an article by Vice.com discussing the character and its GamerGate origins. Never seen Vice.com before though so I don't know if it is reliable. The picture definitely helps recognizability, at least. starship.paint ~ regal 23:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You could say that about literally every person or entity mentioned in this article. Why is it so important that readers recognize Vivian James if they see her elsewhere without a caption. Why is this recognition so crucial that we can't leave it to the curious to google her for themselves? Would you support including images of every woman victimized by this movement's harassment? Of every journalist quoted and every game dev whose work is mentioned? Even without NFCC concerns to consider, we don't take the time to depict every person, character, building, street sign and landmark mentioned in every Wikipedia article. And when there are NFCC concerns, inclusion criteria are even stricter. What's so important about Vivian James, when she's scarcely mentioned in the sources we have on this issue? -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Vivian James is even more important because she is a direct creation of GamerGate, whereas naturally none of the real people have such a claim. Anyway, I don't object to having pictures of the major figures within GamerGate. Quinn definitely. Sarkeesian perhaps. See whose name keeps popping up within the article as a subject. starship.paint ~ regal 00:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

She was created collectively by the gamergate hive mind? Or she was drawn by someone who wanted to prove something about GamerGate? You think perhaps Sarkeesian might be as important to GamerGate as Vivian James? Doing a Google news search, Sarkeesian gets 270+ hits to Vivian James's' three. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I meant, perhaps we should include a picture of Sarkeesian. Since I even bothered to mention Sarkeesian, you should understand that I am quite in favour of including Sarkeesian's picture. Just not as definitely as I would support Quinn's picture. Also, it doesn't really matter who created it, the important thing is VJ was created due to GamerGate. starship.paint ~ regal 01:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a justification for Gamergate being important to Vivian James, not for Vivian James being important to GamerGate. We have very few sources that even mention her in relation to Gamergate. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The image is relevant to the TFYC article; it's their image, their conception about some sort of fictionalized "everygirl gamer", like a spectrum opposite of manic pixie dream girl. It's not real, and has really nothing to do with Gamergate. Tarc (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not only in favour of deleting the image, I'd go as far as saying the entire TFYC section is a big blob of WP:UNDUE that should either be stubbed or deleted. Artw (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

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

It's really hard to keep the article going

I've tried to add NEUTRAL mentions of the Intel thing and both times got reverted by Ryoulong in less than 5 seconds. Only for him to add it himself later, with a quote by a The Verge author, which noone agreed on, nor did he mention/suggest of including in the talk page. This is amazing. I asked for reasons on his talk page and he reverted my comment there too. This guy used to be an admin I can't believe it. Anyway this is related to the article since I want to improve it, I'm not here to push my agenda in any way. Anything related to Ryuolong I'll state in a future ANI since this is not the place Loganmac (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop making new sections on topics already under discussion here. I simply restored content that had been removed from the article which is explicitly stated as the opinion of the writer cited. Maybe it goes elsewhere on the page and a mention of Intel pulling their advertising can go where it is now, but we have both to cover and not omit one aspect because it's critical of the situation.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no need for the quote from the verge author as it adds unneeded focus on a single person's opinion. So I trimmed it, but it could also be put elsewhere in the article, like you suggested, but as a whole quote it's a bit odd considering all the other sources that offer an opinion don't get a long quote. Shadowrunner^(stuff) 12:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That's the overall problem in general that this article is having - as there is almost no one unbiased in the media reporting on this, and the bulk are going to be against the harassment issues and as such appear to be anti-GG, each new quote makes the article appear more biased. Ideally, months or years from now, this will have long settled, and scholars can look back and comment on the topic without bias, and their quotes will be much more relevant to the encyclopedia, maybe identifying quotes made now as key talking points, but we should avoid getting to much into this ourselves at this point, quoting only to assert something of a factual nature (eg for example, Intel's statement of pulling ads). --MASEM (t) 14:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No, Masem, there are lots of unbiased sources. They're just virtually all opposed to GamerGate. Do I need to post the list of reliable sources again? Viewing the issue as one of harassment is not "bias," it is simply accurately depicting the primary thrust of the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Nearly all mainstream sources will be biased (because harassment of women is never going to be seen as a good thing even by outside parties to this). I am not invalidating those sources, just that we have to be aware that there's a huge "pile on" of anti-GG commentary we could easily pull out from these, and we should not be doing more "harm" than needed to explain why the proGG side is seen as negative. Eg: we unavoidably have to discuss how the attacks were seen as misogynic, but at the same time, we have made it clear that the industry does believe only a minority of those on proGG really were involved with the attacks. As such, we can take the necessary care to not use more and more quotes that keep hammering on the sexism and misogyny of that side even if the reliable source chose such language. We need to be be clinically detached from this. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to keep archiving new sections if they're not materially distinct from stuff we've covered before. We're aware that you feel the article is not neutral. We don't need an umteenth talk page post on the subject where everyone can repeat what they've been saying for the past month. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Kotaku is a biased source, that is precisely why it needs to be cited

@Masem:, the entire reason that Kotaku needs to be cited here is per WP:RS (specifically WP:BIASED); the claim that the "allegations were found to be false" is sourced to Kotaku by all of the secondary sources, which means that we should be citing Kotaku on it, because Kotaku is the original source and Kotaku is, obviously, potentially biased in favor of itself. It needs to be attributed to the involved party. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Kotaku and the various sources reporting on what Kotaku has said (as well as other sources that have come up that did their own investigation into whether or not there was in fact a breach of ethics) are both being used here. There's nothing wrong with this other than a pro-GG insistence that something must be done to correct this article and put everyone other than the GG crowd in a bad light.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is there a reason that, in your edit, you chose to characterize Kotaku as "questioning their employee" rather than a more neutral and sourced "spoke to", where "questioning" can imply wrongdoing? Or why you rephrased the allegations as "to obtain positive media coverage" (rather than "to obtain positive media coverage for her game") and at the same time specified that "their reporter had never reviewed Quinn's game", leaving the implication that there may have been other positive coverage? Need we remind you that this is a BLP, and phrases like "allegations were shown to be false"—which summarize the reporting of multiple reliable sources—are absolutely necessary to deny and shut down gossip? Woodroar (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

While most of us would not question the statement from Kotaku's editor in chief that refutes the claim, too many others put a lot of doubt on that. So to make it 100% clear that other RSes agree that the claim has been proven false, we have to include the other sources in addition to Kotaku's statement. (And some will still deny this but we've done our part to satisfy the majority). --MASEM (t) 14:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that all the other sources are referencing Kotaku. Per WP:RS, when we talk about something like this, we're looking for independent sources. They aren't independent sources, and therefore, it isn't multiple sources, it is a single source - Kotaku - whose claim is being repeated. And ultimately, Kotaku's claim is dependent, per their own article, on the reporter's own testimony that it wasn't a conflict of interest. Indeed, to characterize it as false is wrong, because that's not what Kotaku - the original source - even said. They said that they failed to find evidence of impropriety, NOT that the allegations were false - there is an important distinction there. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not that they are using Kotaku as the source, but by how they publish the reiteration of Kotaku's statement, that they believe Kotaku is correct on the matter about the lack of professional impropriety. If they doubted Kotaku, they would have phrased their statements a different way, but they are stating that Kotaku's claim that nothing happened is going to be the truth here. And no, the distinction is not different. The one specifically allegation: "Quinn slept with Grayson for a positive review" was dismissed by Kotaku and subsequently others. Any of the other claims, or any other claim of problems with Kotaku's journalist integrity, weren't examined at all. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, we have to constantly point out to the POV pushers who insist that the phrasing is incorrect because they assume "allegations" refers to the romantic relationship rather than the non-existent result of that relationship. However, in personal experience, that has not stopped the gaters from insisting that Grayson giving Quinn a soap box in the one article he did write about her constitutes this conflict of interest due to whatever conspiracy theorist timeline they have on when the two began their relationship. There's no satisfying this group, to be honest.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Intel pulls ads off Gamasutra

Since this is major it should have a mention next to the lines explaining what the movement accomplished (The Escapist policy changes, etc)

This is still a heavily biased article but it mentions the matter http://www.dailydot.com/geek/intel-pulls-ads-from-gamasutra/#

This I don't know if it's reliable, and there's a conlifct of interest stated in the article itself, Leigh Alexander of Gamasutra works for them http://boingboing.net/2014/10/01/gamergateintel.html

This site I never heard of but apparently it's a site covering advertising http://adland.tv/adnews/intel-has-gamers-inside-pulls-advertising-gamasutra/251869514

We'll probably have to wait for more sources though I'm sure Loganmac (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you gaters stop kvetching about Leigh Alexander and how you think she's biased? Jesus fucking Christ.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum but I'm not saying she's biased, I'm saying the site is biased because Leigh works for them, which they say so Loganmac (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you gaters Opinion discarded. --davidh.oz.au 05:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Really, how many sources does people need to acknowledge that Intel has withdrawn their ads from Gamasutra? It has happened because of Gamergate. It does not need to be analyzed and discussed. It is a fact! Just write a sentence that says that.--Torga (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Right now, I'm not sure if this is appropriate to include yet. It's a "deduction" by weak RS that this is tied to GG - see "We can deduce from that statement that the promised boycott I wrote about in #gamergate - insulting consumers shrinks the market is very much on" from adland.tv (which is not an RS here). They pulled ads, that might be factual, but we have no idea why outside of responding to feedback from its customers. We cannot make the leap of logic that this was due to Alexander working for Gamasutra. --MASEM (t) 06:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

To add, I mean if I were using Occum's Razor, yes, the reason they pulled the ads is to to Op Disrespectful Nod, but we cannot employ that here, and neither DD or adland.tv are sources we can used to justify that. --MASEM (t) 06:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Going off source here but noone thinks they pulled because of Alexander, but because of those Gamers are dead articles, I've seen 3 emails and they all mention "shift in editorial content" and "recent controversial articles". You're right that we need more sources though. Loganmac (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The shift in editorial content is a result of Alexander, as she's the EIC, so ... Willhesucceed (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Dont know if reliable though. http://imgur.com/h5WqpM1 --Torga (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you need sites reporting on it.

Here's an Austrian national newspaper Der Standard http://derstandard.at/2000006322120/Gamergate-Unterstuetzer-setzen-kritische-Journalisten-und-Werber-unter-Druck been in publication since 1988, online version since 1995, since 2005 the paper has been cooperating with The New York Times Loganmac (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

A German language newspaper is not really optimal for sourcing for the English Wikipedia, but I laud your efforts in going out of your way to find it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It may not be "optimal", but it's usable. En.wikipedia is an international project. That the news is written in German merely entails that an editor proficient in German language confirms that our coverage within the article is directly supported by the meaning of the original text, per WP:RSUE. Diego (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Reading the translated version, we're still stuck on the presumption that it was specifically 1) the Alexander piece and 2) the actions of the Disrespectful Nod campaign that led to this; it's the leap of logic. I would say it is usable to say that the proGG side has taken a cause to try to get advertizers to pull from specific sites that reported negatively towards the proGG side of the GG events via Operation Disrespectful Nod, though if we need to include that I don't know. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If the likes of Intel are in effect supporting the misogynist harassment campaign by withdrawing ads from sites that condemn the harassers, then sure, I'd love to see that included in the article. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

...preferably with a more neutral wording. This has to be the first time I agree with Tarc in this topic. Diego (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the bias here , because that's not the articles that are triggering this backlash by gamers - it is the ones that that side considered "disrespectful" of the stereotypical gamer, particularly the ones that are vocal and, importantly, not necessarily the ones that got involved in harassment. Eg: Alexander's piece wasn't so more on the harassment, but the fact a large # of gamers were insulted by how Alexander wrote for this. (eg "‘Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online ‘wars’ about social justice or ‘game journalism ethics,’ straight-faced, and cause genuine human consequences. Because of video games." from [6] is clearly not a statement that would be fair if you were proGG - and if you notice, it is not tagged as an opinion piece nor does GS have an editorial statement. I may not agree with the viewpoint of proGG but I also can see that that article raises a lot of issues if one was part of that camp). Again, there's a lot of speculation we can't include, but we cannot state that Intel is supporting the misogynist side even if they do affirm they removed ads due to Alexander's piece. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously we'd have top wait for reliable sources to begin to characterize Intel's actions as such, but when/if they do, that characterization would be quite article-worthy. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet another source has come out [7]. Bosstopher (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This is good enough now to add in that Operation Disrespectful Nod exists and it's purpose, but that's all we can say now. Even that Verge article is making a leap of logic (the most obvious one, yes), to why Intel pulled. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Question: do we think we can say "In October 2014, Intel pulled its advertising from Gamasutra, citing feedback from its consumers on controversial pieces published on that site; some media sites like The Verge believed this was in direct response to Operation Disrespectful Nod". (emphasis here for the key wording to prevent bias and OR). --MASEM (t) 16:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If we feel that we still have to qualify that by attributing it to a particular source, we should probably leave it out for now and wait for a more formal statement. Several articles have referenced statements from an Intel spokesperson, so I wouldn't call this pure speculation, but it can't hurt to give them a little time to let the issue make its way higher up the chain of command before we assume that's the company's stance. Verge and BoingBoing have the most detailed articles I've seen so far, but I doubt the information that's out there now is all that we're going to get on the question. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Tara on this. If Intel isn't forthcoming, then we can eventually do the attribution. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Re/code is now reporting on it as well. There is also a report in Computer Business Review (www.cbronline.com/news/tech/cio-agenda/the-boardroom/intel-pulls-ads-from-tech-website-after-gamergate-pressure-4392798), but the site is apparently on the blacklist due to editors trying to spam it on Wikipedia years ago. We might consider white-listing the specific article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe Recode is the original source of the news from what I can tell, and so while not an RS it is reported in others. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they were either the first or one of the first to publish the story, but we do have other stronger sources for it already. There's really no reason to request whitelisting of the CBR article, because they're not difficult to replace as a source. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

How is Re/code not a reliable source exactly?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree to this, sounds neutral. Although readers might be left wondering what that Operation is, you either don't include it, or explain it a little Loganmac (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop posting your responses in front of those from other people, FFS. I had to move this out from in front of TaraInDC's comment on 16:28, 2 October 2014.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It was my first time, no need to be rude Loganmac (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

More sources if they're needed http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/10/intel-folds-under-gamergate-pressure-pulls-ads-from-gamasutra/

According to media Intel are misogynist pretty much lol

Also for some reason a lot of Austrian/German sites are reporting on it, doubt any of these are reliable https://www.google.com/search?q="Gamergate"%3A+Intel+beendet+Werbekampagne

Ars Technica mentions 4chan has banned discussion of the topic by the way, don't know if that's important Loganmac (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This was added to the article

"Rich McCormick of The Verge decried Intel's decision to cave to what he called "co-ordinated strikes" to silence voices calling for diversity in gaming, writing, "By giving in to its demands and pulling its advertising from Gamasutra, Intel has legitimized a movement that has shown itself to be anti-feminist, violently protectionist, and totally unwilling to share what it sees as its divine right to video games."

I don't see how a single guy's opinion on The Verge is relevant or important, the anti-feminist side has enough weight already as Masem agreed. We don't need to look up opinions of everything that happens, this way everything gets twisted. A neutral statement is all that's needed. I intended to add something similar to what Masem suggested and noone opposed "In October 2014, Intel pulled its advertising from gaming website Gamasutra, citing feedback from its consumers on controversial pieces published on that site; some media sites like The Verge and Ars Technica believed this was in direct response to Operation Disrespectful Nod, a movement aimed at advertisers of sites in opposition to GamerGate." Sourcing it with Ars Technica and The Verge (Which explain what ODN is) Loganmac (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Both Re/code and Ars Technica offer a fairly neutral take on this development. We should give them priority over the more obviously partisan pieces.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Verge is more known, not sure if Re/code is RS, and yeah the Ars Technica article is pretty neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganmac (talk • contribs) 23:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

[8] NYTimes is now reporting on this, so I would say a neutral statement that it is believed that the Alexander piece was the trigger would be appropriate. But asking for a quick check from here before doing so. --MASEM (t) 00:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Are we sure Nytimes blogs are RS? I still think we should include a small neutral statement like you suggested before, no opinions needed Loganmac (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Neutral in the sense that "Intel removed its ads from GAmasutra, which the site confirmed was over some recent controversal articles" (this is all fact, that's quotable) "(Sources) claim this was in regards to Alexander's piece." (here to avoid us being presumptious). --MASEM (t) 02:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

[9] CNN has come out with an article too now. Mentions Pro-GG interpretations of Operation Disrespectful nod. Bosstopher (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

... and claims it all started with Anita Sarkeesian. And people wonder why I'm contemptuous of mainstream coverage of this topic! Willhesucceed (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward, corporations are not people; they do not get BLP protection. Seeing how reliable sources are now beginning to describe Intel's actions as "siding with misogyny" as well, your claim of "libel" is a joke. Do not alter my post again. Tarc (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Intel's statement Willhesucceed (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Both Engadget and The Verge note that it's effectively a non-apology apology, given that there's no indication the ads will be restored. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I seriously think the word "apology" is rather wrong (yes, I know, sources say that), but statement is a much neutral description, oh well Loganmac (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

More structure

I've added some sub-headings to two sections, to make it easier to find content in them and separate different subjects. The "Allegations" and "Legitimacy" could also use one heading or two, but I couldn't find a good arrangement.

I've bitten the bullet with the term "Social Justice Warrior". By using it as a section title we don't need to define it, and it's clear that it refers to the "backlash against social criticism of video games because many readers don’t want to be told what’s good or bad about a game’s social politics" described in that section. Diego (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it really appropriate to use a term of abuse (and that's how it's intended, however absurd that may seem) as a section heading? --TS 11:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

agree I would not use it as a section heading. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The Fine Young Capitalists

aren't mentioned at all. I understand why the section was removed, but it's odd to remove them entirely. They should be noted and briefly discussed somewhere in the article. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a H3 section for them...--MASEM (t) 14:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I swear I Ctrl+Fd the page before coming here! Willhesucceed (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible background source

Sometime in the last couple of weeks, I had included this Polygon opinion piece by Brianna Wu concerning her experiences with sexist and misogynist harassment. But now everything from this piece is gone entirely. What's up with that?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus and debate my friend. --Torga (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you point out the debate and consensus that led to the removal of this as a source? Cause I don't think I ever saw it happen.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

When this article was massively restructured (I think by RPoD), some of the pre-event stuff was taken out; that including Wu's piece as well as other examples of pre-GG harassment (eg the COD dev) --MASEM (t) 14:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't give the Doomed Red Pen credit for my accomplishments. That was my epic Leeroy Jenkins edit.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That article is earlier than the GamerGate, being dated at Jul 22. It would better used at Sexual harassment in video gaming and Women and video games; if no RS has made the link between that opinion to the GamerGate, including it here would be WP:SYNTH. Diego (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I found it in a post-GG article, but it was on Cracked. To be honest, a lot of their writing on GG has not been satirical.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Google News

For the first time in my experience, today this article appeared as the top hit in a Google News search on the word Gamergate. Perhaps a slight uptick in page accesses and talk page discussion might be expected as a result if this increased exposure. Perhaps not. Google's algorithms produce different results for different locations and different users, so it's difficult to quantify the actual exposure resulting. --TS 11:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It probably has to do with the Intel thing, GamerGate has been the most popular on twitter/reddit the day that happened Loganmac (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight tag

This article continues to be in dispute resolution over the issue of undue weight and NPOV. It needs to be tagged. Given that there are a number of sources which discuss this issue, and given that the Streisand Effect was a big part of why this blew up the way that it did, it is given quite cursory mention. Likewise, there are general issues with presenting Zoe Quinn and her advocates' views excessively. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The participants of that DRN thread then should not be participating in editing this article. And there is not any undue weight or lack of neutral poitn of view. This is the same argument being rehashed by every single person who has been coming to this page again and again because they feel that the pro-GG side of the debate is not being adequately represented, or that the anti-GG side is being given too much coverage. This is how things are represented in reliable sources. And no amount of complaints that these reliable sources are biased against the gamergate crowd is going to change that because we cannot report on what is not already said in the media. It is not the fault of Wikipedia editors that one side of the debate is being written about in detail in the mainstream media while the other side is relegated to fringe media and controversial blog posts that cannot be used one bit on Wikipedia as a source. In fact, several of the sources you have listed above are not reliable and are in fact problematic on BLP grounds to include, which is the whole god damn reason you were originally banned from this article. I don't understand why that ban was lifted one bit. I mean this is already being discussed above under the header #This article is POV, and most of the sources are clearly POV as well where other people have been saying exactly what I have. The article is neutral. No undue weight is given to anything, other than perhaps writing a bit too much on one single person's opinions, rather than the "undue weight" that you are alleging is an issue which is the whole of the "gamergate is full of misogyny and sexist harassment" narrative that is reliably sourced to multiple news sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If "no one involved in the DRN should be editing the article", then why on earth are you, Tarc, and NorthBySouthBaranof doing so? All three of you are involved in that. You continue to remove the tag, despite having been told in the past that it was inappropriate to do so while the dispute resolution was going on. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've clearly stated twice on the DRN page that I'm not participating in it because its just forum shopping.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing at DRN that prevents one from editing the article in question, particular with the underspecifity of the DRN request (which boils down to "None of the sources present the unbiased view, what are we to do!"). --MASEM (t) 14:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I had no idea there was a DRN filing over this. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

And at the DRN, you are simply rehashing the same tired, irrelevant conspiracy-theory "biased" nonsense for the fifteenth time. There is no purpose in it, and I decline to relitigate claims that have been repeatedly rejected as lacking any basis in policy or common sense. Sources you disagree with are not biased and even if they were, we're not prohibited from using biased sources. If you want to keep peddling that line, there is no point in "dispute resolution" because you refuse to admit that that has already been resolved. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

At the DRN, I'm going through and sorting out the sources by what they talk about. You are upset because it indicates that the sources do not back up your repeated claims that the sources all just talk about harassment, because they do not. Even a selection from your list, which you claimed to be all about harassment, revealed a large number of sources which disagreed with that assessment. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No one is claimed that they only talk about harassment, but it is true most make that the lead-in focus of the story. --MASEM (t) 21:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

[citation needed] - neither I nor anyone else has ever stated that it is "only" harassment. Rather, what I have repeatedly stated is what is supported and restated by reliable source after reliable source - that if it ever was about "journalism ethics" (a debatable point in itself), the decision to focus the campaign on allegations about the sex life of an obscure indie developer stemming from a "strange, rambling attack" of a blogpost by the developer's "spurned ex-boyfriend" (both quotes from NYT) was impossibly misguided, resulting in a wave of misogynistic harassment and third-grade-level sex jokes which have permanently and irreversibly poisoned the well for any future debates. To quote The New York Times, "Intel’s decision added to a controversy that has focused attention on the treatment of women in the games business and the power of online mobs." That is how the movement is perceived in the mainstream, and there really isn't any neat and easy way of undoing it as you and others would apparently like. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It's like I'm on Twitter again. For fucks sake, Titanium Dragon, no one is saying that "Gamergate is a harassment campaign and nothing else". All reliable sources and all people discussing things here note that the controversy concerns eliminating conflicts of interest in gaming journalism but it was also conflated with the fact that Zoe Quinn was and is still being harassed because her jilted ex said shit about her that people ready to hate on anyone for getting into their boy's club ate right up.

And also what the hell happened to that Brianna Wu piece I found weeks ago?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong: I'm not sure I'm familiar with that article. Who is Brianna Wu, and who did she write for? I mostly remember sources, not journalists. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Wu is a podcaster with 5by5 Studios and wrote this for Polygon shortly before the shit hit the fan.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

To consider: is GG part of a larger social trend (beyond video games)

First, this is inspired by this article [10] but I would not use this article to support this. But it's implying (and I've seen other elements of this) that what's happening in GG is one facet of what is happening in other media areas as well. It would be interesting to see if there are sources that point this out, but at the moment I'm not aware of any and I would not add this until this point is clear. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any source saying that, other than Milo comparing it to the JournoList Loganmac (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, hence why I'm not going to add anything until we can a few more better non-SPS sources on this concept, should it exist. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"creating a divide between consumers and game industry professionals including developers and journalists."

I'm aware that you don't necessarily need to include sources in the lede, but I don't agree that this is a good assessment of the issue. I added a citation needed tag, rather than simply removing it, to see if anyone could find reliable sources describing this as simply a 'consumers vs. industry' issue: I would contend that GamerGate is a subset of consumers all its own and doesn't represent the general gaming population. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Re this: what I actually said was that I refrained from removing it out of an overabundance of caution against 'revert warring,' to see if it could be supported by whoever added it. I didn't say anything about 'clarifying.' If it can't be sourced, it should go. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It is very obvious from the entire body that this exists (though being clear that it is not all gamers at play helps). The essence of GG is gamers vs dev/media from numerous sources. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not obvious at all. It's clear there's a 'divide' between Gaters and the industry. Not all 'consumers' are gaters. Your phrasing also implies that it's only the industry on the other side of the 'divide,' when in fact there are plenty of 'consumers' over there as well. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you look into it yourself, Tara, and then you wouldn't be wasting the rest of the contributors' time? It's pretty easy to verify. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Says the guy who starts a new talkpage section every time he finds a source he thinks 'someone' should use in the article. I tagged the statement and started a talkpage section here rather than removing it to give whoever added it an opportunity to source or improve the statement. It's not my job to source something I don't think should be in the article to begin with. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's so terrible that I bring articles to the contributors' attention. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

And absolutely dreadful that I started a discussion about a change to the article I had concerns about instead of immediately reverting it. Everyone has access to Google news, so dumping sources onto the talk page and expecting other editors to evaluate and use them for you isn't exactly productive: if this discussion is a waste of time, those certainly are. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

While you and I know that there gamers that support the journos and devs here, we don't have sources that say this. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Do we have sources that say otherwise, though? I'm not advocating saying 'between some consumers and the industry and some other consumers,' I'm advocating removing information that gives a skewed perception of the issue. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Tara. It's not obvious (at all) that GG is "gamers/pros versus devs and journalists". That's certainly a narrative that the GG side would like to adopt, but we could just as easily classify the issue as a flare up of resentment and tribalism from a narrow and dedicated group of individuals manifesting itself through sexism and threats against outsiders. Obviously that's the anti-GG side, but I think the bloodless wording belies a slant to the characterization which we need to address. Protonk (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The point of the statement is to identify who the participants in the controversy are, because it is not clear without it. Once you read the article, it is glaringly clear that it is a subset of the gamer community on one side, and devs/journalists on the other; these are not bright lines, there's likely some of each on the other side, but for the most part that is the classification. The article does not make that clear at any point, even though the sum of the parts says this. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious from the whole article. Not sure about the devs part but seriously just google games journalism, and the "divide" has been growing since other incidents, like DoritoGate, mentioned at Keighley's article, the Kane & Lynch controversy, also mentioned, the Mass Effect 3 debacle, etc Loganmac (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That's the thing, though: it's a 'divide' between gaters on the one side, and games journalists and the marganalized audiences that gaters are railing against on the other. Gaters have been painting this as an 'industry vs the consumer' issue, but outside observers looking at the movements targets and tactics say otherwise. This looks like an attempt to give preference to the gaters' preferred narrative in defiance of the relaible sources on the matter. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, where are there sources that marganalized gamers are on the opposite side of the proGG side? There is a lot of fallout from certain actions that those that could care less about the matter will be affected by, but there are no sources that claim that there is a large contingient of gamers on the opposite side of the table from the proGG side. I mean, I don't deny they exist, I know a few, but I also know no sourcing is available to establish that. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, where's the source that they aren't? You're essentially trying to open the article by introducing Gamergate's 'David vs Goliath' narrative, without providing any support other than saying that it's 'glaringly obvious' that it's true - even though you yourself acknowledge that there are gamers on both sides of the issue. As I haven't advocated changing it to 'Some Davids vs Goliath and some more Davids,' it's still you who needs to provide sources, not me. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

you shouldnt have to "read the article" to find out that it is a vanishingly small portion of gamers that hold the views/ participated in the assaults, that should be clear in the lead per WP:LEAD / WP:NPOV etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I found the Guardian's article spells out the sides explicitly, so readded with the source. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You're basing that on the summary under the headline from one article? That's a pretty poor justification for painting this entire issue, in the lede, as being a conflict between gamers and journalists. Look at the amount of sourcing that was necessary to retain the word 'misogyny' in the lede of the article. It's also worth noting that while Gamergate claims to be focusing on journalism and the industry, their real targets are somewhat more specific and we shouldn't suggest otherwise. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It is patently obvious it is primarily between gamers and journalists/devs. That's " It is a war between self-identifying “gamers” and video game critics." gives. Yes there are exceptions, but every major mainstream articles clearly paints it this way. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not and no, they don't.

• The New York Times — "For a little more than a month, a firestorm over sexism and journalistic ethics has roiled the video game community..." [11]
• National Public Radio: "For the past several weeks, the video game industry has been embroiled in a heated, sometimes ugly, debate..." [12]
• Marketplace: "There's a fight underway that's tearing apart the community of people who play, write about, enthuse and obsess over video games." [13]
• Vox: "Over the past several weeks, the online video game community has become ground zero for a series of heated discussions and arguments..." [14]

I can go on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that phrasing doesn't fully identify which side is which, but when you gather all the sources, the split is patently obvious. And this should be clear who the "players" are in the lead (which should state the who, what, when, with the body doing the how and why of the matter), but it presently doesn't. Considering it is a broad stroke that doesn't dig into the details of the exceptional cases, what is exactly wrong with "a portion of the gamers vs game journo/devs"? What is factually wrong about that the sources in the article counter? --MASEM (t) 23:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It is false and misleading to state, in the lede and in Wikipedia's voice, that the only people on one side of the argument are "gamers" and the only people on the other side of the argument are "journalists and developers." That is a vast, yawning and unacceptable oversimplification of a complex issue. There are journalists on one side (Milo Yiannopoulos and Erik Kain among them) and gamers on the other, as can be easily demonstrated.

It is not possible to identify who the "players" are in the lede in the simple and neat way you would like. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can as a broad statement is 100% appropriate for the lead. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A broad and accurate statement would be appropriate for the lede, but we have is a broad statement that is backed up by a lone source when there are many others that disagree. The 'split' is not "patently obvious. If it were patently obvious, we would not be here. It only 'obviosu' that is a conflict within the gaming community. It is obvious that the gaters would like to present it as a 'consumer revolt' and a 'battle' between the little guy gamers and the big bad media, but that's not what our sources are saying. A majority of our sources, as evidenced by those that NBSB provided, are not treating this as a conflict between gamers and journalists, but one within the gaming community, so that's what the article needs to say. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, would someone move the portal templates in the references section, or just make them a bit better placed, if possible?

The appearance doesn't come off well, and they push the references to the side. There isn't a "See also" section, so I guess maybe they could just be moved to the bottom of the "References" section? Dustin (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Censorship

The question of private censorship of privately owned but publicly available fora seems to be an important and interesting component of this controversy. The Techcrunch story of 25 September covers some of this here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC).

It's briefly covered at Backlash and social media campaign ("On some websites, posts relating to the controversy were blocked or deleted"), and that Techcrunch is used further down to quote the author's opinion. I agree we could expand the concept with more opinions from RSs. Diego (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There's not a lot of opinions on this that can be sourced, since the primary reaction is from gamers posting in on social media or other forums. It's covered as necessary to the point right now that sources go into it (as a minor part of the overall issue). --MASEM (t) 14:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There are a large number of sources on this. Forbes, TechCrunch, GamerHeadlines, GamesNosh, Digitimes... Julian Assange commented on it, and we also had the Breitbart thing which would be an opinion on it. Really it is a major part of the story. I'm not sure where you got the idea it was a minor part of the story from; the coverage on it has been fairly extensive. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

We've already rejected Assange's comment as completely aside to the matter (as he never stated the words Gamegate). GamerHeadlines and GamesNosh aren't reliable. We have mentioned that the censorship led to the Streisand effect, which is important, but there's little more else that we can go into on it. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That Assange AMA question is constantly being brought up on this site and others as proof of whatever the speaker wants to say about people being banned from all of these websites for bringing up Gamergate, but as Masem points out he did not speak about Gamergate. He may have been asked something that included the word "gamergate" but it's not like what he said applies only to Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It is more accurate to say that Assange did comment on GamerGate, but Newsweek only alluded to this without noting that a quote about GamerGate was a quote about GamerGate. We can easily cite Reddit as a primary source to clear up that fact, but then that would require acknowledging a more credible voice of support for GamerGate and, natch, some here will use any excuse in the book to keep as much of that shit out of this article as possible. Fortunately, the New Statesmen has been more honest in its reporting.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I read the AMA at Reddit, and the question was a way to attach GG to a censorship question, something like "What are your feelings when corportions employ censorship, as with Gamergate?". Assange basically had no opinion on GG itself, just (as would be expected for him) the use of censorship. As such, the quote is completely unrelated to any valuable discussion on this article. --MASEM (t) 01:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The question was "How do you feel about the censorship on Reddit in wake of GamerGate?" and his response started with "It's pathetic" so he was definitely talking about it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Which doesn't give any opinion on gamergate itself, and a question that just knowing Assange, the answer was pretty much a given. It's useless here. --MASEM (t) 03:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Eg it is like asking Charleton Heston his opinion on gun control in the wake of a school shooting, and using that to justify an opinion about the school shooting. It's a indirect question. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A question about censorship of GamerGate discussions is not related to GamerGate? Masem, you have very weird standards. For the record, we also have the News Statesman piece talking about it as well. The WikiLeaks tweet cannot really be interpreted as anything other than a show of support for GamerGate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A man who is extremely anti-censorship was asked what he thinks about censorship and the person asking the question tacked on something about Gamergate to the end so they feel like they have someone huge backing them regardless of the answer's content. Assange said nothing about Gamergate itself. Just a reiteration of his stance on censorship.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That's cute, but you are operating in WP:JDL territory now. The question was about GamerGate and the response was about GamerGate. Newsweek takes note of the comment and that GamerGate came up (the Reddit thread allowing us to connect the two seemingly unrelated statements in the article), while the New Statesman explicitly notes support from Assange and Wikileaks. We would be quite able to make further note of censorship concerns in relation to all that.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Assange replied to it and less than 30 minutes the official Wikileaks published two tweets asking #GamerGate (using the hashtag) to aim higher, who are we kidding here that he wasn't talking about? Loganmac (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Can either of you point out one thing in his response that speicifically discusses Gamergate? Or is it just "censorship is bad"? And no citable source we have mentions Gamergate in relation to the actual quote you want to have in this article, as far as I am aware.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We can cite primary sources when we're dealing with opinions expressed by people, Ryulong, and the fact that he was responding to the question about GamerGate - and the fact that Wikikleaks Tweeted about it reinforces the idea that they are aware. That's one of the things that primary sources are actually useful for. Incidentally, your complaint about a man not liking censorship not being quotable would mean that we would have to eliminate all of the feminist sources from this article. According to your logic, we should do so. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the forbes source a real article or a contributor post? Protonk (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That's likely a Kain piece, which while a contributor, has an established past with being reliable from the standpoint of the VG project. We're fine with that as a source here. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you all for your editing efforts

With that said, I have to say here that I had been reading the Talk page for this article, from Archive 1 right to halfway of Archive 4 - and I don't wish to read any further.

It seems to me that there are so, so few editors working on this article who are not impassioned. I have been seeing pro-GamerGate editors trying to sneak in stuff and sneak out stuff from the article in the name of "Neutral Point of View" and "Reliable Sources", and the anti-GamerGate ones blocking the sneaks in the name of "Neutral Point of View" and "Reliable Sources". Sometimes, it's even the same stuff being brought up again, and heck knows how many times the article has been edit-protected.

It's exhausting to follow for someone who is not particularly invested in Wikipedia.

Kudos to MASEM though. You have the temperament for such edit-warring.

Maybe what the article needs is an entirely fresh set of editors - and I don't mean Single-Purpose Account ones.

"Social Justice Warrior"

Why is it 'best' to leave this term unqualified? Just saying it's 'best' isn't a justification - explain why, please, if you're going to revert every attempt to include any context for the term It's not unique to GamerGate, and it's not so important to the movement that it needs to be included at all, but if it must, I see no reason not to include some information about what people are saying about the use of the term or what it implies. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It's important to include somewhere here because the term is used frequently in the sourcing we are providing, so anyone reading further will know where the term applies; that makes it necessary to at least mention. But because the definition will actually vary strongly depending on which side you want to take, it's best left for the term to speak on it's own and/or left to the reader to infer from the sources, because we cannot certainly come up with an consistent objective definition from the sourcing. (It also does sorta speak for itself, knowing that "social justice" is a thing). --MASEM (t) 15:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

With no explanation for the term or its implications, including it doesn't add anything. As with GamerGate itself, we let the reliable sources define it for us, so it doesn't matter that the definition 'will actually vary strongly depending on which side you want to take.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does add something; it provides a text in enough context (to know that those supporting Quinn et al were called that by the proGG side) to let the reader know what is implied by this term. We have zero need to define it because it is simple enough to gleen from the words, and there is no definition out there that is not biased any way or another. While I am fully on the lines that we do go by what the sources say, this is yet another point that we have to be awre the bulk of the sources are decidedly anti-GG and is going to us language that is not appropriate for what our neutral stance needs to be. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Perceived bias isn't a fatal flaw in a source, as I would think you would know by now. GamerGaters would say that this article is 'biased' because it describes their movement in terms the movement doesn't use itself, but since we're only saying what the sources do that's not a problem. It's a pejorative. That's simple fact. It's generally anti-progressive. that's easily citeable. What reliably sourced information on the term would you like to include that might 'balance' that in favor of the Gaters' position? Saying that we must include this term but we must not explain its meaning is a bizarre position to me. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing we can add to balance the proGG because that's sourced, so to maintain the balance we subtract from the other - or at least prevent that position from being so pervasive throughout the article as to create the bias. When reliable sources do define the term, it's more anti-proGG fuel, adding to the calls of sexism and misogyny that are already clear in this article, we don't need to pile on more. That's been the issue with a lot of the recent editors and the overquoting. Yes we are using the sources, but to me it feels like some are using that to push the anti-proGG side as much as it can be since there's going to be nothing from the proGG to counter, which means that NPOV doesn't have to be followed. While technicially correct, we can be better, and find something that is a fair balance of points and does not at all attempt to villify the proGG side as much as the article does now while still making sure that the actions of harassment and doxxing are noted as extremely bad things as seen by the press and in no way justifying these tactics. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We need to present this information the way the sources do, good or bad. We can't restrict information simply because it paints GamerGate in a bad light. If there is 'nothing we can add to balance the proGG' then there's no bias problem. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not accurate. We do have to summarize and mirror sources, but per NPOV and WP:BIAS, we also have to be aware when sources will spin the story in a direction that's not appropriate. This in no way means we should alter how we approach the facts here (eg burying the mysogyny aspects) but when these sources are speaking their opinions, and particularly personal opinions, we can be a lot more selective about what to include to avoid being too much a mouthpiece for these. And in the case of SJW definitions, none of them that I've seen even attempt to state the term in unbiased language. Since it stands on its own in context (eg who called who, and after establishing that Quinn's game was around focus of a social issue) it is better for us not to enter into that debate and only acknowledge its existence. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It's because the phrase itself is inherently biased. It is only ever used by people in or out of the Gamergate controversy to pejoratively refer to people. It's used on Tumblr to refer to the overly politically correct people who talk over other people or champion for things that don't need to be championed for. Gamergate just uses it to call out their opposition.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It's because the phrase itself is inherently biased. This is exactly it. It's a decidedly loaded term. Using it with no context about how it's used within the gater movement is inappropriate. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We give it context: it is what the proGG side has called Quinn et al. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm talkinga bout context for what the term means. Yes, they called Quinn and her supporters "social justice warriors,' but why? What does the term mean? By including it, we're suggesting that their use of the term is important, so why don't we bother telling the reader what it means? There is commentary about gaters' use of the term, and what it implies which is at least as important to this article as their use of the term itself; excluding it because it 'creates too much bias' is an NPOV issue. We can't exclude relevant information that clarifies what this term means as it's used by gaters because it makes the gaters look bad. If you don't want to include it, we can remove the term altogetehr, but we can't introduce it without explaining why it's being used as it is. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Either we give the definition or criticism of the term or we don't include it in our summarization of the events.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it works fine without definition as it is clear to its meaning in context. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is it important to include if we don't define it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Because some of the articles in our sources using "SJW" (the term or even some cases, just the abbreviation) without context; as such for a reader that is looking to research this topic, we provide a necessary "term of art" that applies so they know what it is when they encounter it. This is standard good practice for any encyclopedic article. Again, it's perceived meaning is apparent in context. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not our place to explain that to people if we don't mention it but other publications do and don't bother to inform their readers what it means.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. And it's not that none of them that use the term/abbrev SJW don't define it, some definitely do. If it the term was used and never defined or put in context, I might agree, but it's definitely understood what it means in context, but putting that to words will be a biased statement from any source. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the definitions provided by publications differ so much that picking a definition would ultimately be an arbitrary decision. Besides, none of them really get it right. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree: the sourced definitions are perfectly apt. A linguist defining a term would look at how it is used to determine what it means, rather than accepting what the people using it say that it means. The sources do get it right: it's a pejorative term for people who speak up against bigotry, especially online. The people who use it frequently say that it really means someone who makes 'shallow' comments about social justice, or that it refers to people who are insencere and only use social justice to 'make themselves look better.' But the term is actually best defined by examining who and what it's used to describe, not what the users say it says about the people they level it against.

Again, we can not restrict sourced information just because it makes gaters look bad. If you don't want to go into what the reliable sources are saying about GamerGate's use of this term and what it says about the movement, we can leave it out. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

There are also more neutral definitions in some of the sources, and many of the sources vary as to the exact definition, so we can't arbitrarily pick which one to use. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If you don't like the content I added, let's see the sources you'd rather use instead. All you're doing is asserting that conflicting sources exist and using it to argue against using any of them. Let's see the ones that conflict? -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

NPR calls it "an insulting term." [15] I again agree that it is entirely inappropriate for us to mention the phrase without mentioning the fact that it is a non-self-applied pejorative label created and singularly pushed by their ideological opponents. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That's fair, but when we start to broaden the ambit beyond that to explain what exactly it's meant to insult, we run into the problem that different sites say different things. For lack of a reliable dictionary definition, there's little else we can describe about it. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If we're including the term to arm readers who want to look through the sources on the page we should at least do them the courtesy of noting its valence and various uses. We don't have to settle on a single definition just yet, but it's not the kind of term which can be on the page without elaboration as it is not commonly known and has specific meaning to this issue. Protonk (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Without knowing anything about the controversy, the term "Social Justice Warrior" already carries an implicit meaning - one that fights for social justice. Yes, when used in GG, it takes on also a more demeaning nature, however, you have sources reporting on what the term means that already don't like that term being used, and as such, is nearly always going to be defined by them more harshly than it really should be taken. As such, we can leave it at the implicit meaning particularly when enough context is established: it is what some proGG call Quinn and her supporters. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The term is demeaning, insulting and pejorative, and is singularly used and applied by their opponents in an attempt to belittle their actions and motivations. We cannot use demeaning, insulting and pejorative labels without specifically citing its use and explaining the term as discussed in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As NBSB said, it's a pejorative, and we need to make that clear. If the only argument against including it is that it makes Gamergate look bad, I invite you to balance the information we've introduced on the term with well sourced pro-Gamergate information about its use (whatever that might be.) Fighting to exclude extremely well-sourced information that makes the movement look bad in the name of 'neutrality' is simple hypocrisy. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you 100% sure that every proGG person is using the term in a derogatory manner? I'm not proGG but I would disagree with that statement. There are definitely a handful of cases that "SJW" is tossed around insultingly at people, but at the same time, the term by itself is like "911 truther"; there's a negative connotation but that ranges from "they disagree with my opinion" (very slight, and hence not a bad thing) to something equivalent to like the n-word (grossly insulting). That said, I wouldn't have a problem saying that the term is sometimes used derogatorily towards the Quinn supporters, which can be sourced in a neutral manner. But we don't need further comment on why that term being used derogatorily is a bad thing - it's patently obvious already that that side is not seen in a positive light. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No, no and no. We have posted a number of sources describing the term as patently pejorative, insulting and demeaning. Do you have even a single source that describes the term as anything else? Yes, it's funny that it's supposed to be a bad thing that someone fights for social justice, but that's the intent of the term as applied against those who oppose harassment of women in gaming. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you 100% sure that every proGG person is using the term in a derogatory manner? That is so not how WP:RS works and you know it. We don't need to personally verify that it's being used this way all the time: that would be OR. We say what the sources say. If you have sourced information that shows that SJW is something other than a pejorative, please feel free to provide it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine, the sources say it pejorative, and we can include that, but at the same time that also eliminates the need to go into the term more and provide a definition, though if we have to include a definition, the WA post's version "a derogatory term for people in the video-game industry who use the medium to talk about political issues" is about as neutral as appropriately needed here. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)